NationStates Jolt Archive

Tonight on CNN i just heard of a report during a debate on Child sexual activity and the absetence only education vs trandtional sex ed... One study qouted stated that condomes protect against gonorrhea in males only 30% of the time and 60% in women? Is that accurate ? If so... its a fact which was failed to be taught to me in all of my sex education, and im quite astonished such facts arn't told to kids in traditional sex education classes

One study qouted stated that condomes protect against gonorrhea in males only 30% of the time and 60% in women? Is that accurate ?
You did say the report was on sex education vs. abstinence-only education, right? If that's so, that's probably one of the fallacious remarks that are omnipresent in abstinence-only education.

Never heard those stats, but it doesn't surprise me.

You did say the report was on sex education vs. abstinence-only education, right? If that's so, that's probably one of the fallacious remarks that are omnipresent in abstinence-only education.

abstinence only education is hardly Omnipresent.. traditional sex ed receives 12 times more funding... its realitivly new...

this debate was in response to the new statistics stating 1/3 of 9th graders are sexually active now

Condoms are fairly ineffective against most STDs. This is why so many people are critical about the standard sex ed. Again, the kids aren't told the whole truth.

Condoms are fairly ineffective against most STDs. This is why so many people are critical about the standard sex ed. Again, the kids aren't told the whole truth.
Umm no. Condoms are about 90% effective. I bet you think you can get AIDS through masturbation and tears too, right?

Umm no. Condoms are about 90% effective. I bet you think you can get AIDS through masturbation and tears too, right?

Of course not to the latter (course you wern't asking me, just thought I'd say that).

As for the former...sounds familiar, been awhile since I took Health. 10%, 1 out of 10 chance the condom doesn't work though? Not exactly 'safe sex' is it? Maybe a better phrase would be 'sex where you have probably have greater protection from an STD but 1 out of 10 times you actually don't'. A bit long-winded though. I guess I just don't like the phrase 'safe sex' being used since it can be misinterpreted, because let's face it, younger people are stupid (look at yourself ten years ago, were you smart then? of course not, you were a goddamn idiot, in fact chances are not a whole lot has changed :D). Like I said I havn't taken Health or anything like that in awhile so I'm not sure if they even use it in classes anymore. Perhaps someone can enlighten me there?

dont y'all ever use google? i just pulled this off the net

Meta-analysis of several studies showed an 87 percent decrease in risk of HIV transmission among consistent condom users versus non-users. However, three of the best-designed studies showed that HIV infection rates were less than 1 percent per year among consistent condom users. These data provide compelling evidence that consistent use of the latex male condom is a highly effective method for preventing HIV transmission, the report says. Studies also show a 49 percent to 100 percent reduction in risk of gonorrhea among men reporting condom use compared with non-users.

Umm no. Condoms are about 90% effective. I bet you think you can get AIDS through masturbation and tears too, right?

No, I'm not that stupid. But there a quite a lot of things that can get through condoms. Given that most STDs are incurable, I'm not too keen on using anything that's not 100% effective, like abstinance.

dont y'all ever use google?.

I am very lazy.

No, I'm not that stupid. But there a quite a lot of things that can get through condoms. Given that most STDs are incurable, I'm not too keen on using anything that's not 100% effective, like abstinance.
You're missing the point. Teenagers are going to have sex. No matter what you say, or threaten, or instill fear of they are going to do it. Since some are going to have sex, don't you think it would be better for them to have some knowledge of protection? Even if there is a one in ten chance of getting a disease, those are much better odds than with no protection. Abstinence education removes this, while regular sex ed provides the best of both worlds.

Condoms are the way to go. They DO work, if you hear someone telling you they dont look pityingly at them for a second and them punch them in the mouth, beacuse the deserve it, trying to risk your health just so they can force their morals onto you.

Having said this, try abstinance too. It leads to a simpler life. By god a simpler life.

You're missing the point. Teenagers are going to have sex. No matter what you say, or threaten, or instill fear of they are going to do it.

You sure? I didn't.

... Honestly...

Hasn't anyone figured out that you should, you know, avoid having sex with INFECTED people?

Guess what, chance of getting HIV from someone who doesn't have HIV? 0%!

You can have sex with them, -constantly-, forever, and, yeah, still 0%.

Fricking duh.

Tonight on CNN i just heard of a report during a debate on Child sexual activity and the absetence only education vs trandtional sex ed... One study qouted stated that condomes protect against gonorrhea in males only 30% of the time and 60% in women? Is that accurate ? If so... its a fact which was failed to be taught to me in all of my sex education, and im quite astonished such facts arn't told to kids in traditional sex education classes

Oh no! Gods forbid we actually be careful and take precautions with sex! Gods forbid we actually look into our partner's sexual history before getting involved.

I still have no pity for people who contract STDs. Slow deaths are too kind for their kind of ignorance, apathy, lack of self respect, and lack of self restraint.

You sure? I didn't.
Im sure. Trust me. Lots of sex. Lots of it.

... Honestly...

Hasn't anyone figured out that you should, you know, avoid having sex with INFECTED people?

Guess what, chance of getting HIV from someone who doesn't have HIV? 0%!

You can have sex with them, -constantly-, forever, and, yeah, still 0%.

Fricking duh.

Thank you. I mean really, sometimes I wonder about humans being the most intelligent species on the planet.

You sure? I didn't.
You're not all teenagers, and you can hardly expect everyone to act like you. The point is some will, and therefore knowledge of protection should be given out. I mean nevermind that fact that we should tell students the truth, I'm sure institutionalized ignorance is a good thing.

You're missing the point. Teenagers are going to have sex. No matter what you say, or threaten, or instill fear of they are going to do it. Since some are going to have sex, don't you think it would be better for them to have some knowledge of protection? Even if there is a one in ten chance of getting a disease, those are much better odds than with no protection. Abstinence education removes this, while regular sex ed provides the best of both worlds.

IQ test / personality test castrations. Score too low and you won't have kids.

Thank you. I mean really, sometimes I wonder about humans being the most intelligent species on the planet.
So you meet someone, and you're about to have sex with them and then suddenly just before you put on the condom you think...

"By jove, i should check if this person has any STDs, i know ill ask them and they will give me an honest and/or informed answer whihc will satisfy me as to their sexual health. However just to be sure i think we shall both just pop down to the clinic to have some uncomfortable tests performed before waiting a couple of weeks to get all the results back. Jee williker i hope i can hold this erection that long"

Umm no. Condoms are about 90% effective. I bet you think you can get AIDS through masturbation and tears too, right?

Their effectiveness goes up to the late 90's when you use them properly. A lot of their failures are due to staying in too long, not pinching out air when you put them on, wrong sizes etc.

Their effectiveness goes up to the late 90's when you use them properly. A lot of their failures are due to staying in too long, not pinching out air when you put them on, wrong sizes etc.
As for sizes... not that ive ever tried it all myself as ive never bothered with them *ducks hail of rotting vegetables*...

one thing i have noticed, is the quite humorous way in which they are named:

Large - ok, fine
Naturale - O.o will normal not do, or does the idea of not having a giant penis offend some people.
Trim - *cough* im afraid i still find this funny.

You're right, the term safe is misleading, which is why the nurses here, including the ones i worked with at our local AIDS Organization, use the term 'safer.' It implies that it is better than not using anything, but not 100% effective.

Honestly, instead of just giving out free condoms or free guilt trips, they should do free STD test batteries, done without parents getting to find out, with little cards you get with the date of your last check up, so people can flash a card and say "See, as of last week, still HIV free, and I haven't done anyone since."

Throw in some "Learn how to figure out if the jerk is lying to you" classes, and we're all set.

And then mebbe some "STDed Singles Groups" so people who've already screwed up can get some without infecting the population. Giving STDs, similarly, needs to be considered a hate crime at the least.

Honestly, instead of just giving out free condoms or free guilt trips, they should do free STD test batteries, done without parents getting to find out, with little cards you get with the date of your last check up, so people can flash a card and say "See, as of last week, still HIV free, and I haven't done anyone since."

Throw in some "Learn how to figure out of the jerk is lying to you" classes, and we're all set.

And then mebbe some "STDed Singles Groups" so people who've already screwed up can get some without infecting the population. Giving STDs, similarly, needs to be considered a hate crime at the least.
Maybe we should try to prevent people from becoming infected in the first place, not just making them quickly aware of the fact that they are infected...

abstinence only education is hardly Omnipresent.. traditional sex ed receives 12 times more funding... its realitivly new...

they weren't claiming that abstinence-only is omnipresent. they were claiming that abstinence-only 'eductation' is filled well beyond capacity with obvious falsehoods and idiotic and disproven nonsense. which is true. abstinence-only 'education' ranks up there with creation 'science' in terms of pure unadulterated moronitude and retardicity.

... Honestly...

Hasn't anyone figured out that you should, you know, avoid having sex with INFECTED people?

Guess what, chance of getting HIV from someone who doesn't have HIV? 0%!

You can have sex with them, -constantly-, forever, and, yeah, still 0%.

Fricking duh.

Thats why the only safe sex is when you are married and both you and your partner have saved yourself for marriage

Maybe we should try to prevent people from becoming infected in the first place, not just making them quickly aware of the fact that they are infected...

The idea is that the card is evidence that someone is clean. If someone doesn't care about you enough to be tested just to be absolutely sure, you're already proven to be wasting your time.

The disease is in PEOPLE. It can't be removed from those people.

The one and only way to destroy the disease is to find those people and keep them -sexually- isolated from the people who are clean.

People with STDs, as much as it may upset them, need to be mature enough to deal with their fate rather than spread it. If they find someone who wants to be with them forever, and is willing to accept the disease, fine. That way, when both of you die, it dies with you. When you're still at the temporary partner stage, however, it can spread perpetually.

Sex doesn't CAUSE STDs. Sex isn't bad in and of itself. Sex is merely a carrier. So long as you avoid pregnancy, you can screw an STD-free person from dusk till dawn, and you will never, ever, EVER get an STD from them.

Thats why the only safe sex is when you are married and both you and your partner have saved yourself for marriage

Bull.

My last sexual partner and I were both clean. She had a blood test since her last partner, and I'd never had one. While we had other things to do most of the time, we could have fucked like bunnies and still had absolutely no chance of any disease risk, whatsoever. We could have had any FORM of sex we wanted, at that. Don't even have to wash up afterwards. Still 0% chance. Perfectly absolutely safe sex in regards to STDs.

Thats why the only safe sex is when you are married and both you and your partner have saved yourself for marriage

Not nessicarially marrage, but at least knowning them long enough to trust them. To the poster above about waiting for the results, etc. If you don't know the person well enough to know stuff like that about them, then you really shouldn't be having sex with them.

abstinence only education is hardly Omnipresent.. traditional sex ed receives 12 times more funding... its realitivly new...
Yes, but did you actually read what I wrote?If that's so, that's probably one of the fallacious remarks that are omnipresent in abstinence-only education.

Condoms are fairly ineffective against most STDs. This is why so many people are critical about the standard sex ed. Again, the kids aren't told the whole truth.
Really? That's quite interesting, because I had not idea that such things were true. I wonder how that happens? Seeing as HIV is pretty much impossible to contract through sex with condoms, and HIV is a retrovirus, which is a single-stranded RNA reverse transcribing virus, which is pretty damn small. And that gonorrhoea, caused by the bacterium Neisseria gonorrhoeae, is oh-so much larger. I don't think you fully realise just how much larger a bacterium is than a virion.

No, I'm not that stupid. But there a quite a lot of things that can get through condoms. Given that most STDs are incurable, I'm not too keen on using anything that's not 100% effective, like abstinance.
That's also intriguing, because most VD's actually are curable, and pretty much all are treatable. Yes, even HIV, with highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART). It has been able to delay manifistation of AIDS by decades, and, in some cases, has even prevented any clinical symptoms from developing at all.

Hasn't anyone figured out that you should, you know, avoid having sex with INFECTED people?
Hasn't anyone figured out that you should, you know, avoid being around INFECTED people? Yeah, you know what the chance of getting influenza is if you stay locked up? Very low. Goodness, do not offer epidemiological advice like that.

Are you suggesting that, say, hanging out casually with people with ebola is a good idea? Are you morally against quarantine?

If someone has a disease which cannot be cured, and causes great harm, you avoid being in a situation where that disease can be spread to you.

The flu is annoying, but, in countries with good health care, not that big a deal. HIV screws you up no matter how rich you are.

--

I'm getting the impression that you approve of disease for some reason. It's one thing to treat people who happen to be diseased like fellow human beings, but you seem to have no ISSUE with disease that, one way or another, harms people, being perpetuated when it can be stamped out by being careful.

Are you suggesting that, say, hanging out casually with people with ebola is a good idea?
Sure, as long as you don't touch them. It won't last long, however, since the maximum incubation period for any filovirus is 18 days. And that's the maximum. Filovirses can not be transmitted through any way other than direct fluid exchange. I wouldn't advise going to Africa and hanging around Ebola patients without proper protection, especially since their vomiting can be extraordinarily rife with virus, but it really isn't too dangerous. You're arguing with someone obsessed with pathology and epidemiology. Step lightly.

Are you morally against quarantine?
Hells no! Just things like proposing to not sleep with infected people. If there are manifestations of a venereal disease in someone's partner, who in their right mind would copulate with that person? If everyone knew what venereal diseases they had, and were honest about it, then your advice would make sense. But there are much more practical ways to take care of the spread of VD's.

If someone has a disease which cannot be cured, and causes great harm, you avoid being in a situation where that disease can be spread to you.
And, precisely the problem. You typically can not know at all who has a infectious disease or not. The human body is constantly assailed by huge numbers of pathogens, but we are able to fight off most of the bad ones.

The flu is annoying, but, in countries with good health care, not that big a deal. HIV screws you up no matter how rich you are.
Again, there are HAART's which can treat HIV, which are much more available to those with more money. And, secondly, if you think the flu is a minor annoyance, I suggest you take a look at the statistics for the number of deaths from influenza each year. Methinks you'll be a little surprised.

I'm getting the impression that you approve of disease for some reason. It's one thing to treat people who happen to be diseased like fellow human beings, but you seem to have no ISSUE with disease that, one way or another, harms people, being perpetuated when it can be stamped out by being careful.
Nope, I'm all for preventative measure, they're the most effective way to combat disease. I'm just rational about it.

The best solution is to develop better condoms, not repress sexuality.

The best solution is to develop better condoms, not repress sexuality.

That would be a good solution.

You're arguing sideways, dude.

At no point did I say don't have condoms and so forth for when someone screws up.

I will, however, categorically state that anyone who has sex with someone who has an uncurable STD that cannot be absolutely 100% prevented is a fricking moron or jerk UNLESS they are specifically intending a situation where they themselves will be at 0% risk of ever giving it to anyone else. If you're going to marry someone with HIV, by all means, have all the protected or even unprotected sex you want. You're not a risk to the population as a whole, so who gives a hoot? But if you get divorced from them, even if you get down to 99.9999999999999% protection, don't take the fricking risk of not telling them that they have a chance of infection.

The problem arrises when people don't know they have it or that they're risking getting it.

Hence why I said people should keep their STD status updates on a regular basis. It should be mandatory for disease control in general, with that information as a side benefit.

Information=Friend.

--

As for the flu, last I heard it was rough on people with weak immune systems (Super old, super young -- yeah, keep babies and grandpa away from snot rags), and people in situations with sucky health care and food availability.

And you know what? If someone sneezes? You don't lick the snot off their face unless you have one fricking hell of an immune system (I, oddly enough, do, but, EGH)

dont y'all ever use google? i just pulled this off the net

Meta-analysis of several studies showed an 87 percent decrease in risk of HIV transmission among consistent condom users versus non-users. However, three of the best-designed studies showed that HIV infection rates were less than 1 percent per year among consistent condom users. These data provide compelling evidence that consistent use of the latex male condom is a highly effective method for preventing HIV transmission, the report says. Studies also show a 49 percent to 100 percent reduction in risk of gonorrhea among men reporting condom use compared with non-users.

49% to 100% ... rather wide margin of error.... even at 49%... that means there is only a 50% chance of me not getting gonorrhea if i have sex with someone who has it... This is hardly a little tid bit told in every sex ed class.. and im outraged they pass it off as though its fool proof.. i always thought the rates of preventing all STDS were at or near 100%.

The best solution is to develop better condoms, not repress sexuality.

Im more infavor of actually telling kids the risks of condom use as well.. instead of letting them belive its fool proof and speaking of abstinence as a foot-note.

Im not for an abstinence only education program, but in the trandional sex ed programs, the risks of condom use are hardly excentuated.

At no point did I say don't have condoms and so forth for when someone screws up.
I'd sure hope not.

I will, however, categorically state that anyone who has sex with someone who has an uncurable STD that cannot be absolutely 100% prevented is a fricking moron or jerk UNLESS they are specifically intending a situation where they themselves will be at 0% risk of ever giving it to anyone else.
Ok, I pretty much agree. However, what happens when the people do not know? Which is most of the time.

The problem arrises when people don't know they have it or that they're risking getting it.
Yes.

Hence why I said people should keep their STD status updates on a regular basis. It should be mandatory for disease control in general, with that information as a side benefit.

Information=Friend.
And I fully understand this. However, that is too impractical.

Influenza is one of mankind's greatest killers throughout history.

Also, you can actually get thrush just by having too much sex because the fungus (I believe it is) is always present, and shagging too much creates ideal conditions for its growth. Nice.

But those aren't really the key points. What it all boils down to is this. If you don't have sex, or only have sex with people with certificates, then you'll have no chance or a tiny chance of ever catching anything. If you have sex with a condom you'll have a very low chance of ever catching anything. If you have unsafe sex a lot then you have quite a small chance of catching something, but a significant one. If you take the first path then you're missing out on a lot of passion, and passion is a wonderful thing. It's the accountants' route. It's like people who wear cycle helmets - sensible and it could save your life (same as abstinence), but you just loose that hair-in-the-wind feeling of freedom, so notmany people do. I totally understand that. Living is about more than staying alive. So when you've got something going on with someone you really like then I say get busy, because life is too short to miss out on years of great sex because you're worrying about survival. Definitely wear a condom, because it's no real hassle and has dramatically good results, but accept the risk after that, which is, after all, very very small.

...that is too impractical.

So's death and suffering.

Now, here in the states, this would be a bitch, due to the way our health system works.

I wager it's not a big deal to pull off in Canada and other well-off socialized medicine countries. Whether anyone's smart enough to DO this, I dunno.

I, myself, thankfully, am not so ruled by my schlong that I need to take risks. My last sexual partner had a blood test after her most recent sexual encounter, and with my most recent semi-partner, I didn't do anything with her until I was assured that she had had testing done since -her- last encounter.

The result? No life of STD treatments for me, and my sexual activity has only been limited by personal interest, duration of relationship, and the avoidance of pregnancy.

Sex is especially enjoyable when you're not worried of becoming the pharmacy's bitch for the rest of your life.

49% to 100% ... rather wide margin of error.... even at 49%... that means there is only a 50% chance of me not getting gonorrhea if i have sex with someone who has it... This is hardly a little tid bit told in every sex ed class.. and im outraged they pass it off as though its fool proof.. i always thought the rates of preventing all STDS were at or near 100%.

Maybe you should try reading posts once in a while.

The point that was made was that wearing condoms ruduced the risk of contraction of that particular disease by 49 to 100%. Not that condoms are only 49% effective against the disease. What he's saying is that the average man who was studied saw a reduction of 49-100% risk. If you went up to any doctor and showed them something you developed which lowers the risk of a major medical problem by 49%, they'd be jumping for joy at the prospect, let alone up to 100%.

Also, you can actually get thrush just by having too much sex because the fungus (I believe it is) is always present, and shagging too much creates ideal conditions for its growth. Nice.


Wouldn't masturbation be just as much a risk for that? And if its always present, you already -have- it, so it's not an STD so much as a cleanliness issue.


But those aren't really the key points. What it all boils down to is this. If you don't have sex, or only have sex with people with certificates, then you'll have no chance or a tiny chance of ever catching anything.



Much more importantly, you will never ruin anyone else's life, and with those people you're with, you can fuck like bunnies.



If you have sex with a condom you'll have a very low chance of ever catching anything. If you have unsafe sex a lot then you have quite a small chance of catching something, but a significant one. If you take the first path then you're missing out on a lot of passion, and passion is a wonderful thing. It's the accountants' route. It's like people who wear cycle helmets - sensible and it could save your life (same as abstinence), but you just loose that hair-in-the-wind feeling of freedom, so notmany people do. I totally understand that. Living is about more than staying alive. So when you've got something going on with someone you really like then I say get busy, because life is too short to miss out on years of great sex because you're worrying about survival. Definitely wear a condom, because it's no real hassle and has dramatically good results, but accept the risk after that, which is, after all, very very small.

Not everyone gets a hard on via risking the happiness of others.

Like I said, if you want to risk YOURSELF getting an STD, fine and dandy. If you place that risk on someone else without their willing it, you're an utter ass.

It's no better than a draft. You take a person who's done you no harm, and putting them in a situation where they can come to harm. And, I'm sorry, but that takes the fun out of sex for me. I don't have sex with people I'm willing to hurt. I have sex with people I -care- about and would want to -protect-.

I think the abstinence is the way to 100% effectively avoid STDs. This was drilled into my head at Catholic school. I know that in sex ed, they say, "Don't have sex. Here are some condoms." Talk about mixed messages. If you don't want the kids to have sex, don't hand out the bloody condoms.

My fave quote from Mean Girls: "If you have sex, you will get chlymidia[sp?] and die. DIE!" That was great.

And as for the unprotected sex comment, wait until bloody marriage! Screw all you want then.

Or you and your partner can flash your proof-of-sanitation and get to work on sixty-nining.

Or you and your partner can flash your proof-of-sanitation and get to work on sixty-nining.

Go together to get tested, when the results get back screw like bunnies!

Exactly.

We, as a species, should try to turn doing so in to a romantic notion along the lines of flowers and candy.

I mean, honestly, what says "I care about you" more than getting poked at by doctors so you know 100% for sure you don't hurt your lover?

I think the abstinence is the way to 100% effectively avoid STDs. This was drilled into my head at Catholic school. I know that in sex ed, they say, "Don't have sex. Here are some condoms." Talk about mixed messages. If you don't want the kids to have sex, don't hand out the bloody condoms.

My fave quote from Mean Girls: "If you have sex, you will get chlymidia[sp?] and die. DIE!" That was great.

They would say that at Catholic school . . .

Perhaps it's a "mixed-message" for you, but most kids have a fairly easy time understanding that preparing a person for something is not necessarily the same as giving permission to do it. Were I six years old, I still would have grasped, for instance, that my father teaching me how to make a splint for a broken leg was not an endorsement for me to jump off the haystack. In the same way, I can (and have) carried around condoms without ever having a plan of using them. It's not mixed-messages. It's just planning ahead.

If you don't want the kids to have sex, don't hand out the bloody condoms.

you should never use a bloody condom.