NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/index.html

Study: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- At least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens, according to the first study of its kind in this age group.

A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls -- nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.


That seems quite a high percentage...or am I alone thinking this?

What should be done and why is this a racially biased statistic?

Promote abstinence? Ask <chosen diety/avatar> for help? Comprehensive and unbiased sex-education?

I'd go with the latter combined with cheaply accessible condoms (and other contraceptives). I'd also warn about possible dangers of being too promiscuous :p

Heck, I'd also go with free and mandatory STD screenings for teens.

In before the Feminazis and educational buffs.
*runs*

Comprehensive and unbiased sex-education?

This.

<SNIP>Comprehensive and unbiased sex-education?

I'd go with the latter combined with cheaply accessible condoms (and other contraceptives). I'd also warn about possible dangers of being too promiscuous :p

Heck, I'd also go with free and mandatory STD screenings for teens.

All of the above.

http://www.ehivtest.com/ui/images/img_stdmonster.jpg

http://www.ehivtest.com/ui/images/img_stdmonster.jpg

lmao

Here's a question . . . is the form of herpes that causes cold sores considered an STD?

Here's a question . . . is the form of herpes that causes cold sores considered an STD?

No, I don't believe that herpes simplex 1 is a STD.

Remember Americans, be careful who you sleep with.

What's so surprising about that?

What's so surprising about that?

They've had sex with adults (at least a good portion of them)! :p

For that matter:
...why is this a racially biased statistic?

...for I don't have an answer for that as I'm not, well, in direct touch with teen culture of USA.

Maybe it's biased because of the cultural and economical gap between the average black person and other people in USA? Just maybe.

Remember Americans, be careful who you sleep with.

Bit late now.

I'm not, well, in direct touch with teen culture of USA.

Probably a good thing you're not, according to this study.

You gotta wonder what there sample was though. There are 300 million people in the United States. I don't know how many are teen girls, but I suspect it's a fairly large demographic (10 million maybe?). They would have to get a pretty big sample to homogenize their results.

http://www.coolbuddy.com/nozzy_noni/imgs/condom.jpg

Remember Americans, be careful who you sleep with.

Watch out for this girl named Michelle...

The clinic knows me by name now.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/index.html

Study: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- At least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens, according to the first study of its kind in this age group.

A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls -- nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.




That seems quite a high percentage...or am I alone thinking this?

What should be done and why is this a racially biased statistic?

Promote abstinence? Ask <chosen diety/avatar> for help? Comprehensive and unbiased sex-education?

I'd go with the latter combined with cheaply accessible condoms (and other contraceptives). I'd also warn about possible dangers of being too promiscuous :p

Heck, I'd also go with free and mandatory STD screenings for teens.

Does that count Herpes? You know, cold sores? Cause they count as STD as well...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/index.html

Study: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD
...
A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19...
...
What should be done and why is this a racially biased statistic?

everybody gets the vaccine for this one

Ironically, they all got them from Eliot Spitzer.

Here's a question . . . is the form of herpes that causes cold sores considered an STD?Depends on where you have it, how you got it, and how you pass it on. ;)

Comprehensive sex ed.

Which should include the fact that while a condom makes it hard to catch an STD, not having sex at all makes it REALLY hard.

It should also include courses on personal evaluation and criticism, with titles like "Will I really feel good about this in the morning?" and "Does He (or She) really DESERVE me?"

It's interesting to note that a judeo-christian nation that strongly promotes abstinence has such a high rate of teens with STIs, while countries in western europe that promote early education, awareness, and safe sex methods probably have lower STI rates.

not having sex at all makes it REALLY hard.

Which we would probably all endorse if, you know, it actually worked.

Because, yeah, stopping teenagers from having sex? Not. Gonna. Happen. Ever.

Several centuries of failure ought to bring about a much needed change of plans.

If you can't stop them from doing it, at least teach them how to do it safely and properly.

Which we would probably all endorse if, you know, it actually worked.

Because, yeah, stopping teenagers from having sex? Not. Gonna. Happen. Ever.

Several centuries of failure ought to bring about a much needed change of plans.

If you can't stop them from doing it, at least teach them how to do it safely and properly.

I have yet to engage in erotic activities, though I am eighteen. I agree with the "comprehensive education", but this rise is in STD's is exhausting me. I cannot continue to worry about teenagers who want to screw themselves (no pun intended). What is the matter with them? Do their nether-regions have an aversion to pants? Can they not simply mellow-out on the use of sex organs, or at least increase the use of brains?

It's interesting to note that a judeo-christian nation that strongly promotes abstinence has such a high rate of teens with STIs, while countries in western europe that promote early education, awareness, and safe sex methods probably have lower STI rates.

Check the racial breakdown and you will find an interesting breakout. Pardon the pun. Says a lot about how enviroment influences behavior. As for sex education it has been taught for decades.

Can they not simply mellow-out on the use of sex organs
Apparently not.


or at least increase the use of brains?

That's the general idea, since the above is bound to fail.

I have yet to engage in erotic activities, though I am eighteen. I agree with the "comprehensive education", but this rise is in STD's is exhausting me. I cannot continue to worry about teenagers who want to screw themselves (no pun intended). What is the matter with them? Do their nether-regions have an aversion to pants? Can they not simply mellow-out on the use of sex organs, or at least increase the use of brains?

This here.

Maybe these teens should use some..common sense?

...and if anyone mentions some babble about a frontal lobe not being completely developed, you will partially invalidate my argument. So don't do it.

I say we face the fact that teenagers are going to have sex, and go with a comprehensive sex program.

This here.

Maybe these teens should use some..common sense?

...and if anyone mentions some babble about a frontal lobe not being completely developed, you will partially invalidate my argument. So don't do it.

Strange...my "frontal lobe" was not entirely developed and I did not have to acquire an STD because of it. Of course, it may simply be because I am unattractive...ugliness wards-off STD's nicely.

Apparently not.

*low whistle*

That's the general idea, since the above is bound to fail.

The latter may bound to fail too...among all age groups.

I say we face the fact that teenagers are going to have sex, and go with a comprehensive sex program.

You were not taught sex ed in school? I was taught sex ed 25yrs ago. Did they stop?

You were not taught sex ed in school? I was taught sex ed 25yrs ago. Did they stop?

No, they did not. It is a method that is often espoused, but I fear that teens in America lack the intelligence to enjoy the fruits of its implementation.

1. Don't promote the idea that everyone is just a highly-evolved animal.
2. Parents teach their kids right from wrong.
3. Parents DON'T allow the schools to teach their kids everything, including sex education, and they it themselves how they are supposed to.

etc

Strange...my "frontal lobe" was not entirely developed and I did not have to acquire an STD because of it. Of course, it may simply be because I am unattractive...ugliness wards-off STD's nicely.

I do not know if your point is valid, because I am devilishly handsome. In fact, if I had a goatee I could be the devil... yet have not been involved in sexual activities, nor to my knowledge, procured an STD. Let it be known that I am joking with the 'devilishly handsome' comment, I don't want any bad karma floatin' round me..

My high school has no sex ed. My junior high had no sex ed. The closest thing was when we got separated by gender and taught about our changing bodies in fifth grade.

Funny enough, we do have a GPA club. (If you bought a valentine on V-Day, you got a pencil from them saying, "Don't gamble with your life! Save sex for marriage!")

Oh, we did watch an AIDS video in Health. In which a woman says that even if you use a condom YOU WILL DIE.

I hate my school.

Does that count Herpes? You know, cold sores? Cause they count as STD as well...

I belive there are two types of herpes. One, genital herpes, is only sexually transmitted. The other, which I think something like 90% of Americans have, you can get just by drinking from a glass that someone carrying the virus used. It is the latter that causes cold sores.

Does that count Herpes? You know, cold sores? Cause they count as STD as well...

Herpes Simplex 1 (cold sores) is not an STD...
Herpes Simplex 2 (genital herpes) is an STD...

Hope that clears things up a bit.

I say we face the fact that teenagers are going to have sex, and go with a comprehensive sex program.
It's a known fact among educationists that giving children standardized tests makes them smarter. Thus, I propose that the following test be given to every child in America older than ten:
1. Underage sex is:
a. Going to kill us all
b. Not good
c. Your ticket to Chlamydia Town
d. All of the above

Sorry if I spelled "chlamydia" incorrectly. Has anyone else noticed all of the STDs have hard to spell, foreign sounding names? Further proof that sex and its dangers were created by radical immigrants who want to undermine the American system.

Sorry if I spelled "chlamydia" incorrectly. Has anyone else noticed all of the STDs have hard to spell, foreign sounding names? Further proof that sex and its dangers were created by radical immigrants who want to undermine the American system.

I thought that STDs make cool X-men names.

Like syphilis. Cool stealthy villian.

The latter may bound to fail too...among all age groups.
After having tried the former for a couple of centuries, I say we give comprehensive sex ed a good shot before we give up completely.

Unless you'd advocating throwing our collective hands up in the air and giving up, getting used to the idea of unavoidable plagues of STDs.


1. Underage sex is:
a. Going to kill us all
b. Not good
c. Your ticket to Chlamydia Town
d. All of the above

You forgot :
e.Acceptable and normal part of human development when done in a safe manner with a consenting partner provided that both are ready to explore this dimension of the relationship and can grasp the implications of this behavior for both parties involved.

It's a known fact among educationists that giving children standardized tests makes them smarter. Thus, I propose that the following test be given to every child in America older than ten:


Sorry if I spelled "chlamydia" incorrectly. Has anyone else noticed all of the STDs have hard to spell, foreign sounding names? Further proof that sex and its dangers were created by radical immigrants who want to undermine the American system.

Aww, I made a wrong turn at Chlamydia Town and ended up in Syphilisville. :(

Clearly abstinance only education is working. After all, if we taught them about safe sex and condom use, this number would only rise.:rolleyes:

Clearly abstinance only education is working. After all, if we taught them about safe sex and condom use, this number would only rise.:rolleyes:

Obviously. Statistics show clearly that the liberal heathens in Europe and Canada, who send their kids to get proper sex ed, have much higher rates of teen pregnancies and STD infections.



Oh, wait. No they don't.

1. Don't promote the idea that everyone is just a highly-evolved animal.

yeah. we aren't any more highly evolved than any other animals currently alive.

2. Parents teach their kids right from wrong.

i guess, though i get the impression that far too many of them have no idea how to go about figuring out right from wrong anyway, so we'll have to get their kids engaged in critical thinking outside of their parents control in addition.

3. Parents DON'T allow the schools to teach their kids everything, including sex education, and they it themselves how they are supposed to.

haha, yes, we should leave sex education entirely to people without any demonstrated knowledge in the subject. great plan.

I think this is good news. Adds an extra frisson to the classic one night stand. Like a really slow Russian Roulette.

That's vaguely disturbing...

I have yet to engage in erotic activities, though I am eighteen. I agree with the "comprehensive education", but this rise is in STD's is exhausting me. I cannot continue to worry about teenagers who want to screw themselves (no pun intended). What is the matter with them? Do their nether-regions have an aversion to pants? Can they not simply mellow-out on the use of sex organs, or at least increase the use of brains?
Nothing is the matter with teenagers who choose to have sex. That is normal and natural behavior. One of the biggest problems in my culture is that people continue to promote some ass-backwards notions about sex and sexuality, including the idea that there's something wrong with teens who are sexual. There isn't, and precisely nothing is accomplished by claiming there is.

Teenagers need improved access to contraception and reproductive health care. Teens need access to medical professionals in confidence.

When I was a teen, every time somebody talked about how teens shouldn't be having sex I went home and fucked my girlfriend. Telling me to stop fucking did not work in any way, shape, or form. All the lectures on abstaining did not lead me to delay losing my virginity by a single moment.

If 16-year-old Bottle could give one message to the adults of the world, it would be this:

Stop telling kids not to fuck. Just stop. We won't. We're going to fuck. Do something productive instead of wasting your breath. We laugh at you and go fuck during study hall. Give it up.

If 16-year-old Bottle could give one message to the adults of the world, it would be this:

Stop telling kids not to fuck. Just stop. We won't. We're going to fuck. Do something productive instead of wasting your breath. We laugh at you and go fuck during study hall. Give it up.


Can I sig that?

Can I sig that?
Fuck yes.

;)

If 16-year-old Bottle could give one message to the adults of the world, it would be this:

Stop telling kids not to fuck. Just stop. We won't. We're going to fuck. Do something productive instead of wasting your breath. We laugh at you and go fuck during study hall. Give it up.

I'd like to add this as well:

"By the way, we know you did too. Stop being hypocrites about it and pretending you didn't."

Fuck yes.

;)

So you consent? Yes?

*leaps*

So you consent? Yes?

*leaps*

Nah, she didnt consent, Bottle hates sex. She said so herself in the Anominity for Rape Accused topic. Didnt you Bottle?:p

Nah, she didnt consent, Bottle hates sex. She said so herself in the Anominity for Rape Accused topic. Didnt you Bottle?:p
GAAAAH! I KNEW IT WOULD HAUNT ME!!!

:D

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/index.html

Study: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- At least one in four teenage girls nationwide has a sexually transmitted disease, or more than 3 million teens, according to the first study of its kind in this age group.

A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls -- nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.


That seems quite a high percentage...or am I alone thinking this?

What should be done and why is this a racially biased statistic?

Promote abstinence? Ask <chosen diety/avatar> for help? Comprehensive and unbiased sex-education?

I'd go with the latter combined with cheaply accessible condoms (and other contraceptives). I'd also warn about possible dangers of being too promiscuous :p

Heck, I'd also go with free and mandatory STD screenings for teens.

Um, just a guess here, but aren't STDs transmitted sexually? It is part of the name, after all.

Condoms, especially the more inexpensive varieties, are failure-prone and many viruses are thought to be able to pass through the membrane of even the best.

Sex education could be the answer, but what is the track record? Apparently it hasn't curbed the spread of STDs. "damn! the tranny"s busted! give 'er more gas!" isn't the philosophy to follow. Time for an overhaul, IMHO.

Abstinence works. Don't engage in sexual activities? Don't get kids, don't get nasty diseases. Admittedly, many would rather do whatever the hell they want and expect everyone to be astonished when the probable consequences occur.

Question: why is it that many of you who believe that no private citizen is responsible enough to own a firearm also see no problem with telling people to do what ever they want sexually and it's not the government's business to interfere in any way until it's time to pay for the abortions, welfare, medical care, etc. associated with risky behavior? A very small percentage of gun owners will ever even brandish a firearm in a threatening manner (defensively OR offensively), much less harm someone. By this study, if 50% of teen girls have experimented sexually, there's a 50% chance they have a disease already. If only 25% are having sex, all sexually active girls are infected. I don't even like the odds of 1 in 4. Something is broken here, so what is it?

Flame away, trolls......

snip OP snip

Yup, thats what they told me in high school. And then they tried to get us to sign little business card to pledge our abstinence. Ironic no?

Ask <chosen diety/avatar> for help?

I'm not sure what a cookie could do, but I'll ask.

I have to say, this seems like a depressing topic, especially since several of the more common STD's have few or no symptoms and some can render a woman infertile. Also, I believe that one of the ways this could be reduced is to stop believing that teenagers are going to have sex and there is nothing we can do about it. I am well out of high school and I have never had sex. Sex is a want, not a need. You will not die if you do not have sex. Get over it.

Furthermore, I cannot say if this study is racially biased or not, although it may be helpful to point out that since blacks make up about 12% of the population, if half of the teenage girls have an STD, then the absolute numbers are lover than for Hispanics or Caucasians. Going back to the study, I do not believe that any reputable scientist would knowlingly allow a racial bias into their study, that is mere a quick and painful method of academic suicide. Finally, what does economic condition or class have to do with your liklihood to have sex, I am not sure what economic class I fall under, probably either the Upper Lower or Lower Middle class, but, as I stated previously, i have never had sex. Please explain this to me.

Um, just a guess here, but aren't STDs transmitted sexually? It is part of the name, after all.

Condoms, especially the more inexpensive varieties, are failure-prone and many viruses are thought to be able to pass through the membrane of even the best.

Sex education could be the answer, but what is the track record? Apparently it hasn't curbed the spread of STDs. "damn! the tranny"s busted! give 'er more gas!" isn't the philosophy to follow. Time for an overhaul, IMHO.

Abstinence works. Don't engage in sexual activities? Don't get kids, don't get nasty diseases. Admittedly, many would rather do whatever the hell they want and expect everyone to be astonished when the probable consequences occur.

Question: why is it that many of you who believe that no private citizen is responsible enough to own a firearm also see no problem with telling people to do what ever they want sexually and it's not the government's business to interfere in any way until it's time to pay for the abortions, welfare, medical care, etc. associated with risky behavior? A very small percentage of gun owners will ever even brandish a firearm in a threatening manner (defensively OR offensively), much less harm someone. By this study, if 50% of teen girls have experimented sexually, there's a 50% chance they have a disease already. If only 25% are having sex, all sexually active girls are infected. I don't even like the odds of 1 in 4. Something is broken here, so what is it?

Flame away, trolls......


Here is the fun part though. Most of our schools dont teach safe sex. So you cant say "it isnt working", especially when its not really being employed.

How about this? American teens are 70 times more likely to get an STD than those teens in the Netherlands or France. Now, which do you think is the more likely cause of that? That:

A) Teens in America have more sex

OR

B) France and the Netherlands teach safe sex as a rule of thumb while in America we spend untold millions on Abstinance Only education, which has proven time and time again not to work.

Ill give you a hint, the answer isnt A.

Secondly, I want some stats on how often condoms fail. Because Ive been having sex for a loooong time and have gone through uncountable condoms. Not one has failed. Thats a stat anti-safe sex people like to throw around, but I havent seen any credible source proving it. Got one of those for me chief? Please note I said credible. Focus on the Family or James Dobson dont count.

Finally, your comparison between guns and sex fails so utterly. Primarially because one is a perfectly natural biological function, the other isnt.


EDIT: Your insinuation that anyone who will call you on your BS arguement or disagrees with you because your opinion is unsupportable is a troll is very cute.

Finally, your comparison between guns and sex fails so utterly. Primarially because one is a perfectly natural biological function, the other isnt.

I was thinking more because it's a bit easier to accidentally kill people with guns.

I was thinking more because it's a bit easier to accidentally kill people with guns.

Maybe He got the "This is my rifle, this is my gun, thos ones for shooting, this one's for fun" saying messed up?

I don't know if this has been mentioned (I didn't see it), but the most common STD by far is HPV, which is generally symptomatic, although certain strains can lead to cervical cancer. More than half of all sexually active people over the age of 25, I believe, have been infected, though many don't know it because it never presents. My ob/gyn actually told me that something like 75% of sexually active women will get it at some point. Direct genital contact isn't even required--it can be transmitted even through thin clothing barriers.

No, I don't believe that herpes simplex 1 is a STD.

I thought it could be transmitted both sexually and non-sexually. I know that I have it because I got it from my mother, probably during birth (or sometime in the following 25 years), who got it from her first husband. I've had maybe three cold sores in my life, when I'm sick and stressed.

everybody gets the vaccine for this one

Actually, that vaccine is fairly new and only for women under 26, so many people do not have it.

1. Don't promote the idea that everyone is just a highly-evolved animal.
2. Parents teach their kids right from wrong.
3. Parents DON'T allow the schools to teach their kids everything, including sex education, and they it themselves how they are supposed to.

That's a good theory. Or, you know, we could look at the data and actually try something that works. Whatever.

Condoms, especially the more inexpensive varieties, are failure-prone and many viruses are thought to be able to pass through the membrane of even the best.

Condoms are given out free at many Planned Parenthood buildings, as well as other agencies which seek to protect people from transmitting deadly diseases. I'd also like a source on who exactly thinks that "many viruses" are able to be transmitted through condoms.

Sex education could be the answer, but what is the track record? Apparently it hasn't curbed the spread of STDs. "damn! the tranny"s busted! give 'er more gas!" isn't the philosophy to follow. Time for an overhaul, IMHO.

Whenever sex education does not stop 100% of STD transmission and unplanned pregnancy, the cry inevitably comes out that it doesn't work. It seems expected that some perfect education will obliterate all of these problems that have existed for, oh, as long as we've been in existence. Yet the fact that abstinence-only education has lead to a RISE in teen pregnancy and STDs seems acceptable. Why is that?

Abstinence works. Don't engage in sexual activities? Don't get kids, don't get nasty diseases. Admittedly, many would rather do whatever the hell they want and expect everyone to be astonished when the probable consequences occur.

And staying away from all water means you'll never drown. However, if I take swimming lessons, go to a proper place to swim like a pool, and make sure there's a lifeguard on duty, there's a pretty low likelihood that I'll drown. There's still a chance, but I'd be pretty surprised.

Question: why is it that many of you who believe that no private citizen is responsible enough to own a firearm also see no problem with telling people to do what ever they want sexually and it's not the government's business to interfere in any way until it's time to pay for the abortions, welfare, medical care, etc. associated with risky behavior?

Because I believe that people have a right to do what they want with their own bodies... not other people's.

Flame away, trolls...

Or we could just have a reasonable discussion. I mean, I know that's not as exciting...

I'd also like a source on who exactly thinks that "many viruses" are able to be transmitted through condoms.

Some Cardinal from the RC church. While he loudly declared it he waved a scientific report around that turned out to state the exact opposite. The RC church apologised and corrected his statements, but did so in the typical RC manner: making sure nobody noticed so the useful lie can continue to spread.

Some Cardinal from the RC church. While he loudly declared it he waved a scientific report around that turned out to state the exact opposite. The RC church apologised and corrected his statements, but did so in the typical RC manner: making sure nobody noticed so the useful lie can continue to spread.



Lies. How dare you accuse the Roman Catholic Church of being liars! An Inquisitor will be at your home in 20 minutes.

Which we would probably all endorse if, you know, it actually worked.

Because, yeah, stopping teenagers from having sex? Not. Gonna. Happen. Ever.

Several centuries of failure ought to bring about a much needed change of plans.

If you can't stop them from doing it, at least teach them how to do it safely and properly.

I do believe we should promote abstinence, but at the same time, let them know that, if they choose to have sex, there are precautions they can take (condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, and what-not). In essence, tell them, "We would prefer if you waited to have sex, however, what you do is your own decision. However, if you do decide to have sex, here's what you can do to stay safe/avoid getting pregnant, etc."

I do believe we should promote abstinence, but at the same time, let them know that, if they choose to have sex, there are precautions they can take (condoms, diaphragms, IUDs, and what-not). In essence, tell them, "We would prefer if you waited to have sex, however, what you do is your own decision. However, if you do decide to have sex, here's what you can do to stay safe/avoid getting pregnant, etc."



See, thats all well and good, but really, we shouldnt have to teach abstinance. Because to be honost, if you dont know that abstaining from sex would prevent pregnency and sexually transmitted diseases, youre probably not bright enough to know what goes where during sex...

See, thats all well and good, but really, we shouldnt have to teach abstinance. Because to be honost, if you dont know that abstaining from sex would prevent pregnency and sexually transmitted diseases, youre probably not bright enough to know what goes where during sex...

Hey, never underestimate the stupidity of the average person. ;)

Hey, never underestimate the stupidity of the average person. ;)


Indeed. Bush was reelected.

The most frustrating thing about proponents of abstinence-only education is that they don't seem to care about the people their policies harm.

The most frustrating thing about proponents of abstinence-only education is that they don't seem to care about the people their policies harm.

Of course not. Sam Harris goes into this in a rather entertaining way in Letter to a Christian Nation, but he basically says that because they dont care that their policies cause more teen pregancy and cause a wider spread of STDs, and that Missionaries in AIDS ridden Africa preach about condoms being sinful, they dont really care about ending suffering, they are worried that "The creator of the universe might take offense to something people do while naked."


Id cite the page if I had my book on me.

Homage to Cobbleism ...:

I love my friends and they love me
We're just as close as we can be
And just because we really care
Whatever we get, we share!

I got it from Agnes
She got it from Jim
We all agree it must have been
Louise who gave it to him

Now she got it from Harry
Who got it from Marie
And ev'rybody knows that Marie
Got it from me

Giles got it from Daphne
She got it from Joan
Who picked it up in County Cork
A-kissin' the Blarney Stone

Pierre gave it to Shiela
Who must have brought it there
He got it from Francois and Jacques
Aha, lucky Pierre!

Max got it from Edith
Who gets it ev'ry spring
She got it from her Daddy
Who just gives her ev'rything

She then gave it to Daniel
Whose spaniel has it now
Our dentist even got it
And we're still wondering how

But I got it from Agnes
Or maybe it was Sue
Or Millie or Billie or Gillie or Willie
It doesn't matter who

It might have been at the pub
or at the club, or in the loo
And if you will be my friend, then I might ...
(Mind you, I said "might" ...)
Give it to you!

The OP had me convinced till he went off with his "free and mandatory STD testing for teens."

Hellooooo? Right to privacy? Anyooooneee?
I'm all for education and distribution (b/c here in Texas, we only teach abstinence in schools :headbang:), but there have to be some limits.

Um, just a guess here, but aren't STDs transmitted sexually? It is part of the name, after all.

There are a number of diseases which can be transmitted sexually, but which also can be transmitted non-sexually. HIV, for example.


Condoms, especially the more inexpensive varieties, are failure-prone and many viruses are thought to be able to pass through the membrane of even the best.

"Thought" by whom?


Sex education could be the answer, but what is the track record? Apparently it hasn't curbed the spread of STDs.

Care to back that up with something?

According to the expert reports I've read, the dramatic drop in the incidence of teen pregnancy and STD infection over the last decade was between 50% and 75% due to increased contraceptive use.


Abstinence works. Don't engage in sexual activities? Don't get kids, don't get nasty diseases. Admittedly, many would rather do whatever the hell they want and expect everyone to be astonished when the probable consequences occur.

Abstinence education, however, does not. Ever. Never has. While it sometimes may lead to teens delaying their first sexual experience by up to about a year, it simultaneously decreases the likelihood that they will practice safe sex when they stop abstaining.

And, remember, virtually all of them WILL stop abstaining. Even if they wait until marriage, that won't magically solve the problems of unplanned pregnancy and STD transmission. Marriage is not a contraceptive. Marriage does not protect you against STDs.


Question: why is it that many of you who believe that no private citizen is responsible enough to own a firearm also see no problem with telling people to do what ever they want sexually and it's not the government's business to interfere in any way until it's time to pay for the abortions, welfare, medical care, etc. associated with risky behavior?

It's very telling that you equate human sexual behavior with the ownership of dangerous weapons. Seek help.


A very small percentage of gun owners will ever even brandish a firearm in a threatening manner (defensively OR offensively), much less harm someone. By this study, if 50% of teen girls have experimented sexually, there's a 50% chance they have a disease already. If only 25% are having sex, all sexually active girls are infected. I don't even like the odds of 1 in 4. Something is broken here, so what is it?

Flame away, trolls......
Well, since you asked nicely...

Based on this post, you appear to be a fellow who's freaked out about sex and has a nigh-Freudian obsession with guns. You also can't do math. You are a glowing example of why we need improved comprehensive sex education in schools. Thank you for contributing to my argument.

You also can't do math. You are a glowing example of why we need improved comprehensive sex education in schools.

Math education too. But in general, QFT.

See, thats all well and good, but really, we shouldnt have to teach abstinance. Because to be honost, if you dont know that abstaining from sex would prevent pregnency and sexually transmitted diseases, youre probably not bright enough to know what goes where during sex...
And, seriously, how long does it take to "teach" kids abstinence? I can't honestly imagine spending any more than an hour explaining how to NOT have sex.

What "abstinence only" programs usually do to kill time is they start preaching conservative sexual values at kids. Primarily, the idea that females are the gate-keepers of sex, while males are the evil sex-crazed beasts who will always be after Just One Thing. Which is not only bullshit, but also is very dangerous because it leads to some fucked up notions about sexual consent. After all, if no Good Girl would ever Do It, then guys are basically being told that they either have sex with Slutty Bad Girls, or they force/coerce Good Girls to have sex. Neither of those strikes me as particularly healthy.

Maybe He got the "This is my rifle, this is my gun, thos ones for shooting, this one's for fun" saying messed up?

lmao

Homage to Cobbleism ...:

:D I have an instant liking for anyone who quotes Tom Lehrer.

Nothing is the matter with teenagers who choose to have sex. That is normal and natural behavior. One of the biggest problems in my culture is that people continue to promote some ass-backwards notions about sex and sexuality, including the idea that there's something wrong with teens who are sexual. There isn't, and precisely nothing is accomplished by claiming there is.

Sex of, and in itself is not wrong. But the results of its execution (STD's, pregnancy) can be inconvenient. These problems could be solved with condoms, but it appears that teenagers simply are not intelligent enough.

Teenagers need improved access to contraception and reproductive health care. Teens need access to medical professionals in confidence.

I believe there are a lot of schools that hand-out condoms. I believe medical-professionals are available as well.

When I was a teen, every time somebody talked about how teens shouldn't be having sex I went home and fucked my girlfriend. Telling me to stop fucking did not work in any way, shape, or form. All the lectures on abstaining did not lead me to delay losing my virginity by a single moment.

"forbidden, pp. Invested with a new and irresistible charm."

-Ambrose Bierce.

Or is it simply that religious fatuity augments your libido? :)

If 16-year-old Bottle could give one message to the adults of the world, it would be this:

Stop telling kids not to fuck. Just stop. We won't. We're going to fuck. Do something productive instead of wasting your breath. We laugh at you and go fuck during study hall. Give it up.

The only trouble is, condoms are not being employed. :(

PROMOTE IT!!!
http://www.ilusa.com/gallery/safe_sex.gif

PROMOTE IT!!!<snip pic>

roflmao
I'm just glad that I wasn't drinking anything when I saw that...

roflmao
I'm just glad that I wasn't drinking anything when I saw that...

:D
I just gave them their solution.
:D

I'm sorry but I seem to of fell in the washing machine again and emerged in the 80's where the phrase STD is still used in the same sense of calling a cough a major artery disease

but anyway ST-let-celebrate-the-millennium-together-now-I's are not only caught in more ways than the love juices of members of the same sex but also rather common and unless life decides to really decides screw you easy to cure with at most some pills and a long night talking with the Mrs

curiously the sex difference is left out on this which is to say rather revealing as it would show that on average men suffer far worse than women due to the obsession with having a perfect penis (and thus not going to a doctor is the big concern now)

er...what I'm saying is we need to remove the taboo of sex and have everyone talk about their parts (which I'd rank as more important than teaching practicing safe sex) and heaven forbid have a doctor join the fun if you need help/a reassuring hug

I have to say, this seems like a depressing topic, especially since several of the more common STD's have few or no symptoms and some can render a woman infertile. Also, I believe that one of the ways this could be reduced is to stop believing that teenagers are going to have sex and there is nothing we can do about it.

I do not think there is any thing that can be done about it, and if even if there were, I do not see why I should have to spend my tax-dollars upon it.


I am well out of high school and I have never had sex. Sex is a want, not a need. You will not die if you do not have sex. Get over it.

You also will not die if you do not play video games. Try telling kids to quit those.

]Furthermore, I cannot say if this study is racially biased or not, although it may be helpful to point out that since blacks make up about 12% of the population, if half of the teenage girls have an STD, then the absolute numbers are lover than for Hispanics or Caucasians. Going back to the study, I do not believe that any reputable scientist would knowlingly allow a racial bias into their study, that is mere a quick and painful method of academic suicide. Finally, what does economic condition or class have to do with your liklihood to have sex, I am not sure what economic class I fall under, probably either the Upper Lower or Lower Middle class, but, as I stated previously, i have never had sex. Please explain this to me.

I know a study by Time showed that people who had sex during their adolescent years were less likely of criminal activity than those who did not.

Sex of, and in itself is not wrong. But the results of its execution (STD's, pregnancy) can be inconvenient. These problems could be solved with condoms, but it appears that teenagers simply are not intelligent enough.

Funny, because the CDC reports that teenagers are increasingly choosing to either practice safe sex or to abstain from sex. Not exactly what one would expect if teenagers were too stupid to practice safe sex or abstain.

Teen birth rates dropped dramatically during the 1990s. Interestingly, one of the first schools to start handing out condoms to students did so in 1991. The landmark case which upheld that schools could legally hand out condoms to students came down in 1995.


I believe there are a lot of schools that hand-out condoms. I believe medical-professionals are available as well.

The most recent numbers I've seen are that about 1% of middle schools and 5% of high schools provide condoms to students.


"forbidden, pp. Invested with a new and irresistible charm."

-Ambrose Bierce.

Or is it simply that religious fatuity augments your libido? :)

Nah, I was just ornery.

Plus, the "Just Say No" drugs campaign demonstrated to me that my teachers were prepared to lie to me whenever it suited them, so I stopped paying attention to their advice about things like drugs and sex.


The only trouble is, condoms are not being employed. :(
Except...they are.

Condom use is at record high levels. Teens who are provided with comprehensive sex ed and access to condoms are much more likely to use contraception and practice safe sex. Pretty much every credible study on the subject has concluded that if you give kids education and access to contraception, they make better choices than if you don't. (Unsurprising.)

Hence my conclusion that we should, you know, do what works. Instead of doing what has never, ever, in the history of humanity, worked. Telling teens to not have sex has never worked. It will never work. We would actually be better off throwing our money down the toilet than spending it on abstinence-only programs, since they tend to INCREASE the likelihood that young people will have unsafe sex.

PROMOTE IT!!!
http://www.ilusa.com/gallery/safe_sex.gif

*Rolls on the floor, laughing out loud*

*snip

Remarkable. I was under the impression that most every school handed-out condoms. Of course, I was home-schooled.

So it is working. It just needs wider implementation.

After having tried the former for a couple of centuries, I say we give comprehensive sex ed a good shot before we give up completely.

Unless you'd advocating throwing our collective hands up in the air and giving up, getting used to the idea of unavoidable plagues of STDs.

I have mentally given-up upon the human-race as a whole. Still, I suggest better programs.

I have mentally given-up upon the human-race as a whole. Still, I suggest better programs.

Widespread sex ed and free, accessible contraceptives and condoms are all that's needed.

Just have a look at Canadian/European stats for teenage pregnancies and STIs, and compare them with some US red states, abstinence-only education in schools.

I'm sure you can Wiki something up. Or just go visit Statistics Canada and the US equivalent for official figures if you're one of those who likes to diss Wiki.

Remarkable. I was under the impression that most every school handed-out condoms. Of course, I was home-schooled.

So it is working. It just needs wider implementation.

Which will be hard to achieve considering the number of christians who would prefer to force their archaic beliefs on everyone.

Of course, I was home-schooled.

I have the perfect solution: have your mom talk to you for hours about sex!

if you can still perform any action other than rocking in the corner you deserve sex :p

I have the perfect solution: have your mom talk to you for hours about sex!

if you can still perform any action other than rocking in the corner you deserve sex :p

LOL
Even if he can't he'll still deserve sex...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/11/teen.std.ap/index.html

Study: 1 in 4 teen girls has an STD

A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls -- nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.



There's now a vaccine for HPV (which is the above-named virus), a single dose at age 11 will immunize a girl for life. The fundamentalists have been fighting tooth and nail to stop its distribution on the grounds that "it will encourage teens to have sex". :rolleyes: I think the study makes clear (if it wasn't already) how specious that argument is.

Sex education is a good idea, promoting access to condoms is a good idea, but adding the HPV vaccine to the childhood immunization regimen is critical.

Remarkable. I was under the impression that most every school handed-out condoms. Of course, I was home-schooled.

So it is working. It just needs wider implementation.
Exactly.

Part of the problem is that there is currently a backlash of abstinence-only bullshit. Thanks in large part to our Chimp In Chief, there's a flood of funding for religion-based virginity-fetish sex "education," while comprehensive programs are neglected or even cut. These programs have been demonstrated to, at best, accomplish absolutely nothing. At worst, kids in these programs are more likely to have unsafe sex than kids who didn't have any kind of sex ed at all.

Wow, this thread really exploded. At first it was kinda small, but now it's so big!

I have the perfect solution: have your mom talk to you for hours about sex!

if you can still perform any action other than rocking in the corner you deserve sex :p
My mom and I were chatting on the phone this past Saturday, and my boyfriend overheard us from the other room. He hollered, "Are you talking about PORN with your MOTHER?!"

Yes. Yes I was. In my family, that's not weird.

One of the conversations I remember having with my mother was when I was about 9 or 10 and I asked her what a "blow job" was. She told me, helpfully clarifying that you don't usually blow when performing a blow job. She also explained what "eating pussy" was, another phrase that had been confusing me. My primary reaction was that it's stupid to call something a blow job when you really aren't supposed to blow, and it's stupid to call something eating pussy if you're not supposed to actually eat it.

It wasn't until I was in high school that I realized most of my peers did not learn about the mechanics of a blow job from their mother, and they certainly didn't learn it while on their way home from grammar school.

I have yet to engage in erotic activities, though I am eighteen. I agree with the "comprehensive education", but this rise is in STD's is exhausting me. I cannot continue to worry about teenagers who want to screw themselves (no pun intended). What is the matter with them? Do their nether-regions have an aversion to pants? Can they not simply mellow-out on the use of sex organs, or at least increase the use of brains?

First bolded explains why you asked second bolded. Calling sex "erotic activites" partially explains first bolded.

I understand your frustration with your peer group, as you are clearly way past them in intellect and reasoning skill. I was too, at eighteen. Thing is, you have to take that into account, and do so in a way that isn't condescending or pedantic. By now (at 37) I've learned through many mistakes, miscalculations and acquiring the ability to apologize sincerely, that tact is the art of knowing what not to say.

As far as "mellowing out" goes, the woman in my first long-term relationship (three years) used to say that sex was like potato chips (ironically enough, the brand with the following slogan was called "Lays") "nobody can have just one". It's not ironclad, but it is reasonably accurate. If you are at all fortunate, you will discover this for yourself. I hope you do, 'cause sex when you're brainy is a delicious dichotomy: animalistic and yet simultaneously fraught with opportunities for deep thought, exquisite expression and intense consideration.

I have to say, this seems like a depressing topic, especially since several of the more common STD's have few or no symptoms and some can render a woman infertile. Also, I believe that one of the ways this could be reduced is to stop believing that teenagers are going to have sex and there is nothing we can do about it. I am well out of high school and I have never had sex. Sex is a want, not a need. You will not die if you do not have sex. Get over it.

It's been shown that all primates suffer some sort of mental and even physical dysfunction as a result of being deprived of affection. Couple that with the fact that sex is a primal drive because of its role in reproduction, and you have something that's very difficult to "get over". Simplistic attitudes like yours don't really help anyone.

Furthermore, I cannot say if this study is racially biased or not, although it may be helpful to point out that since blacks make up about 12% of the population, if half of the teenage girls have an STD, then the absolute numbers are lover than for Hispanics or Caucasians. Going back to the study, I do not believe that any reputable scientist would knowlingly allow a racial bias into their study, that is mere a quick and painful method of academic suicide. Finally, what does economic condition or class have to do with your liklihood to have sex, I am not sure what economic class I fall under, probably either the Upper Lower or Lower Middle class, but, as I stated previously, i have never had sex. Please explain this to me.

Easy (well, easy to explain, but not to fix). Economic condition has a direct effect on what you can do with your spare time. The more money you have, the more things you can do that can distract you from sex (which isn't why you do them, usually, but bear with me). If all you can afford to do on Saturday night is hang out with your peer group, once you reach a certain age, you're going to have the hormones charging your blood and one of the few activities open to you without much cost (if any) is sex. Add to that the cost of safe sex practices (condoms, the pill and the like, especially if free condoms aren't readily available), and it doesn't take much of a leap to see that socioeconomic status has at least SOME effect on STI/pregnancy rates.

Now, if the clinic is only a few blocks away, and the teens are still not taking advantage of it, well that's getting closer to laziness and irresponsibility -- but if no parents are around to foster industry and responsibility (and that situation is also common among the lower end of the SES ladder), that's another contributing factor. Finally, which race is disproportionately poor in the US, especially in large cities? Black people. Put it all together, and the fact that you, as middle class, have never had sex is not terribly unusual, and that the racial component of the OP study isn't really unusual, either.

And, seriously, how long does it take to "teach" kids abstinence? I can't honestly imagine spending any more than an hour explaining how to NOT have sex.

What "abstinence only" programs usually do to kill time is they start preaching conservative sexual values at kids. Primarily, the idea that females are the gate-keepers of sex, while males are the evil sex-crazed beasts who will always be after Just One Thing. Which is not only bullshit, but also is very dangerous because it leads to some fucked up notions about sexual consent. After all, if no Good Girl would ever Do It, then guys are basically being told that they either have sex with Slutty Bad Girls, or they force/coerce Good Girls to have sex. Neither of those strikes me as particularly healthy.

I swear that I would help run your campaign if you ever decided to get elected to a political office. The US needs more people like you.

:D I have an instant liking for anyone who quotes Tom Lehrer.

Well then, shall we dance to the Masochism Tango?

Sex of, and in itself is not wrong. But the results of its POOR execution (STD's, pregnancy) can be inconvenient. These problems could be solved with condoms, but it appears that teenagers simply are not intelligent enough.

Fixed. Other than that, cynical but probably accurate.

I believe there are a lot of schools that hand-out condoms. I believe medical-professionals are available as well.

Not nearly as many as you might imagine -- Bottle beat me to that stat, though.

Remarkable. I was under the impression that most every school handed-out condoms. Of course, I was home-schooled.

So it is working. It just needs wider implementation.

Bingo.

And good luck with that. Countless rational and legitimate arguments and attempts have been made to achieve such wider implementation. President Clinton's first Surgeon General, Dr. Jocelyn Elders, was a strong proponent of comprehensive sex education. Unfortunately, she was also in favor of abandoning the war on drugs. She was fired with almost religious haste when she ran too far afoul of the conservative social agenda in what I thought was a decidedly dark moment in the US. Clinton didn't have much choice, as he wanted to be re-elected, but dammit, SOMEone's going to have to tell this country what it might not like to hear and perhaps suffer a first term loss as a result. Whither integrity?

My mom and I were chatting on the phone this past Saturday, and my boyfriend overheard us from the other room. He hollered, "Are you talking about PORN with your MOTHER?!"

Yes. Yes I was. In my family, that's not weird.

One of the conversations I remember having with my mother was when I was about 9 or 10 and I asked her what a "blow job" was. She told me, helpfully clarifying that you don't usually blow when performing a blow job. She also explained what "eating pussy" was, another phrase that had been confusing me. My primary reaction was that it's stupid to call something a blow job when you really aren't supposed to blow, and it's stupid to call something eating pussy if you're not supposed to actually eat it.

It wasn't until I was in high school that I realized most of my peers did not learn about the mechanics of a blow job from their mother, and they certainly didn't learn it while on their way home from grammar school.

Depending upon how you found out, that could have been rather amusing...

Well then, shall we dance to the Masochism Tango?

Given the extent of this problem, we clearly need to send in the marines.

My mom and I were chatting on the phone this past Saturday, and my boyfriend overheard us from the other room. He hollered, "Are you talking about PORN with your MOTHER?!"

Yes. Yes I was. In my family, that's not weird.

One of the conversations I remember having with my mother was when I was about 9 or 10 and I asked her what a "blow job" was. She told me, helpfully clarifying that you don't usually blow when performing a blow job. She also explained what "eating pussy" was, another phrase that had been confusing me. My primary reaction was that it's stupid to call something a blow job when you really aren't supposed to blow, and it's stupid to call something eating pussy if you're not supposed to actually eat it.

It wasn't until I was in high school that I realized most of my peers did not learn about the mechanics of a blow job from their mother, and they certainly didn't learn it while on their way home from grammar school.

My ex-fiancee was similarly alarmed by how frank my discussions with my mother were. I replied, "well, who better to teach me? A teacher? Someone I don't even know who doesn't know me?" It's the Puritanical attitude toward everything sexual that fucks this nation up royally. How much longer can the species believe that ignoring something makes it go away?

My parents answered all my questions, and when they couldn't, they found books, PBS programs on past my bedtime, or other people who could. I was one hell of a lot better prepared for sex and sexual topics when they arose than anyone involved in abstinence. I am childless and without STI of any kind, and I have enjoyed -- though not nearly often enough for my taste -- sex immensely.

Case closed.

I think the best thing to do is teach children about sex through books etc, that they find hidden. This way they grow up against sex and they are less likely to be round the back of the bike sheds age 13.

I think the best thing to do is teach children about sex through books etc, that they find hidden. This way they grow up against sex and they are less likely to be round the back of the bike sheds age 13.

But how will they get a council flat that way?

The OP had me convinced till he went off with his "free and mandatory STD testing for teens."

Hellooooo? Right to privacy? Anyooooneee?

If 25 percent of teens are infected with potentially hazardous disease it's an epidemic.

You need desperate measures to combat an epidemic - Telling people, sexually active teens in this case, to get voluntary testing WILL NOT help as people of that age tend to believe they are more or less immortal: Something that seems sensible once your older - active sexlife -> regular testing - will feel like bullshit at that age.


Of course, mandatory testing would only be a phase between current situation and the more educated, intelligent and healthier teens of the future...


I'm also partly against HPV vaccination as a cure: It might be seen as sex without a worry card and could further deteriorate the situation with the more harmful STDs....

Perhaps some sort of exam would be needed before a person would qualify for vaccination? With basic questions like: Do you know what's the function of a condom? What diseases does this vaccination prevent? Name 3 common STDs that this vaccination will not help against?

My mom and I were chatting on the phone this past Saturday, and my boyfriend overheard us from the other room. He hollered, "Are you talking about PORN with your MOTHER?!"

Yes. Yes I was. In my family, that's not weird.

One of the conversations I remember having with my mother was when I was about 9 or 10 and I asked her what a "blow job" was. She told me, helpfully clarifying that you don't usually blow when performing a blow job. She also explained what "eating pussy" was, another phrase that had been confusing me. My primary reaction was that it's stupid to call something a blow job when you really aren't supposed to blow, and it's stupid to call something eating pussy if you're not supposed to actually eat it.

It wasn't until I was in high school that I realized most of my peers did not learn about the mechanics of a blow job from their mother, and they certainly didn't learn it while on their way home from grammar school.

"Blow Job" comes from "Below Job" I did not learn that from my mother.

Well, at least they can't complain their boyfriend never gives them anything..

But how will they get a council flat that way?

If they alter the regulations as is being proposed then it will do them no good at all!!!!!

Widespread sex ed and free, accessible contraceptives and condoms are all that's needed.

At first glance I read that as "widespread and free sex", and I thought, now you're talking!

Widespread and free sex, accessible contraceptives and condoms are all that's needed.

fixed for Ryadn

I'm also partly against HPV vaccination as a cure: It might be seen as sex without a worry card and could further deteriorate the situation with the more harmful STDs....

Perhaps some sort of exam would be needed before a person would qualify for vaccination? With basic questions like: Do you know what's the function of a condom? What diseases does this vaccination prevent? Name 3 common STDs that this vaccination will not help against?

I'm sorry, but that's like suggesting a cholera vaccine is a "drinking filthy water without worry" card. The purpose of immunization is to improve public health by reducing risks of infection. Whether these infections are sexually transmitted, waterborne or whatever, the benefits are manifest. We already immunize against Hepatitis B, which can be sexually transmitted. Should we stop that, too?

Rather than pre-screening candidates for vaccination, I would suggest using the opportunity, as a one-on-one between a child and a health professional, to further educate. Explain what the immunization does and does not do, give the child an opportunity to ask questions, send them home with more information.

I'm also partly against HPV vaccination as a cure: It might be seen as sex without a worry card and could further deteriorate the situation with the more harmful STDs....

Perhaps some sort of exam would be needed before a person would qualify for vaccination? With basic questions like: Do you know what's the function of a condom? What diseases does this vaccination prevent? Name 3 common STDs that this vaccination will not help against?

Some people are idiots, so we should just let them get HPV?

At first glance I read that as "widespread and free sex", and I thought, now you're talking!

I wish :(

Some people are idiots, so we should just let them get HPV?

No, you should try to make them STD-free in general. Even if you'd remove HPV from the picture there would still be ~5-6% prevalency for other diseases, that's a LOT when counted against possible victims: Perhaps 2-3 million STDed female teenagers which when left untreated can lead to more serious, and expensive, complications later in life - Let alone the endangered health of future partners as adults.

I think some sort of exam would, could help in preventing *all* STDs - Perhaps even a mandatory course, Sex-ed 101, ending up in an exam which if passed would entitle a girl to a (mandatory) HPV vaccination.

edit:
To clarify: I'm not saying they shouldn't get HPV-vaccine, I'm just doubtful it's a good solution alone.

edit 2:
I also think that ignorance in this case isn't a sign of stupidty but rather a fault of prevalent culture.

I think some sort of exam would could help in preventing *all* STDs - Perhaps even a mandatory course, Sex-ed 101, ending up in an exam which if passed would entitle a girl to a free (mandatory) HPV vaccination.

The idea definitely has merit

edit:
To clarify: I'm not saying they shouldn't get HPV-vaccine, I'm just doubtful it's a good solution alone.

I'm pretty sure nobody is suggesting we just give every teenage girl we spot the jab and then leave them to it :p



At least, I hope not........

I think some sort of exam would, could help in preventing *all* STDs - Perhaps even a mandatory course, Sex-ed 101, ending up in an exam which if passed would entitle a girl to a (mandatory) HPV vaccination.



Yes, we should offer mandatory sex education. Yes, we should offer mandatory, free, HPV vaccinations. No, one should not be contingent upon the other.

I have the perfect solution: have your mom talk to you for hours about sex!

Not a good idea. She thinks that the enjoyment of sex is a sign of low intelligence. She also believes that the crummier your genetics are, the more likely you are to do it. I tried to explain how natural selection works, but she will not listen.

if you can still perform any action other than rocking in the corner you deserve sex :p

Women are not super-heroes; they will not trot about bringing justice. Incentive is required, and I posses none. My visage is almost as repulsive as my personality.

Exactly.

Part of the problem is that there is currently a backlash of abstinence-only bullshit. Thanks in large part to our Chimp In Chief, there's a flood of funding for religion-based virginity-fetish sex "education," while comprehensive programs are neglected or even cut.

I never got the virgin-fetish. No-one here seems able to explain it to me, either.

These programs have been demonstrated to, at best, accomplish absolutely nothing. At worst, kids in these programs are more likely to have unsafe sex than kids who didn't have any kind of sex ed at all.

:p Humans rarely learn from their actions. Even with the damage Bush is doing, I still find him an amusing pilgarlic.

Women are not super-heroes; they will not trot about bringing justice. Incentive is required, and I posses none. My visage is almost as repulsive as my personality.

I find that hard to believe ;)

Which will be hard to achieve considering the number of christians who would prefer to force their archaic beliefs on everyone.
Christian, n. (1) One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.
(2)One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo!
The godly multitudes walked to and fro
Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad,
With pious mien, appropriately sad,
While all the church bells made a solemn din --
A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below,
With tranquil face, upon that holy show
A tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
"God keep you, stranger," I exclaimed. "You are
No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
And yet I entertain the hope that you,
Like these good people, are a Christian too."
He raised his eyes and with a look so stern
It made me with a thousand blushes burn
Replied -- his manner with disdain was spiced:
"What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I'm Christ."

-Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce

I dreamed I stood upon a hill, and, lo!
The godly multitudes walked to and fro
Beneath, in Sabbath garments fitly clad,
With pious mien, appropriately sad,
While all the church bells made a solemn din --
A fire-alarm to those who lived in sin.
Then saw I gazing thoughtfully below,
With tranquil face, upon that holy show
A tall, spare figure in a robe of white,
Whose eyes diffused a melancholy light.
"God keep you, stranger," I exclaimed. "You are
No doubt (your habit shows it) from afar;
And yet I entertain the hope that you,
Like these good people, are a Christian too."
He raised his eyes and with a look so stern
It made me with a thousand blushes burn
Replied -- his manner with disdain was spiced:
"What! I a Christian? No, indeed! I'm Christ."

-Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce

Nice...

This is what STDs will do to us all!!!:eek:
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/BJ_BOBBI_JO9/Work%20job%20computer%20TV%20and%20phone%20related/virused.gif

I'm pretty sure nobody is suggesting we just give every teenage girl we spot the jab and then leave them to it :p



At least, I hope not........
Well, HPV vaccine IMO doesn't cure the actual disease (STDs transmitted through careless promiscuity) just a single relatively harmless symptom, so to speak.

Making girls (and boys) understand this when sticking a needle to them would IMO be more important than even the actual vaccination.

I'm saying the HPV vaccine shouldn't be advertised as a solution to most prevalent STD, rather I'd like to see it advertised - truthfully - only as a part of the solution for STDs in general.

Yes, we should offer mandatory sex education. Yes, we should offer mandatory, free, HPV vaccinations. No, one should not be contingent upon the other.

I disagree, a simple questionnare and 10-20 minute lecture + retest IF the questions are answered wrong would IMO be much more beneficial in the long run than plain vaccination.

If a person doesn't understand, for example, the difference between the pill and condom a vaccination would IMO be almost wasted.

This is just my opinion though - The fact is that 25% prevalency of STDs in teen girls is a horrible statistic (if true) and requires *drastic* measures to tackle.

I find that hard to believe ;)

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/9/95/Dereth.jpg/180px-Dereth.jpg

My major problem is my hair. If I do not comb it *just* right, I look ridiculous.

Nice...

I cannot discern whether or not that comment is sincere....

My major problem is my hair. If I do not comb it *just* right, I look ridiculous.

LOL

I cannot discern whether or not that comment is sincere....

:D

It's interesting to note that a judeo-christian nation that strongly promotes abstinence has such a high rate of teens with STIs, while countries in western europe that promote early education, awareness, and safe sex methods probably have lower STI rates.

actually it has been argued that it is <b>because</b> of our abstinence education that we have more cases of stds because when teens get freaky they haven't been taught about other methods of contraception.

Well, HPV vaccine IMO doesn't cure the actual disease (STDs transmitted through careless promiscuity) just a single relatively harmless symptom, so to speak.
Isn't HPV the one that can cause cervical cancer? Yeah, that's not harmless.

Making girls (and boys) understand this when sticking a needle to them would IMO be more important than even the actual vaccination.
Probably.

I'm saying the HPV vaccine shouldn't be advertised as a solution to most prevalent STD, rather I'd like to see it advertised - truthfully - only as a part of the solution for STDs in general.
I don't think it is being advertised as such. Not that I have seen any advertisements for it.....

But any way, it's somewhat understandable if it's gotten some hype. Vaccines are pretty fantastic things to invent. For every vaccines you get it's basically a disease that (almost) nobody will ever get ever again. Ever.

Unless you live in America where people seem to have a problem with the idea of making their daughters immune to HPV.



I disagree, a simple questionnare and 10-20 minute lecture + retest IF the questions are answered wrong would IMO be much more beneficial in the long run than plain vaccination.

If a person doesn't understand, for example, the difference between the pill and condom a vaccination would IMO be almost wasted.

This is just my opinion though - The fact is that 25% prevalency of STDs in teen girls is a horrible statistic (if true) and requires *drastic* measures to tackle.

I just don't like the idea of people having to pass a test to get medical care.

"forbidden, pp. Invested with a new and irresistible charm."

-Ambrose Bierce.


That's the problem: the US is past the stage where it is seen as a cardinal sin, despite the backlash of some, but still hasn't gotten over seeing it as something magical and special. I can't think of any existing analogies so I'll just make one up as I go along.
If you were banned from eating cookies as a child, they probably were "invested with irresistible charm," and you probably wanted a cookie every time you saw one.
As soon as you left the house and were free of your parents, you probably ate as many cookies as you can get. After all, cookies are delicious and crunchy and many other wonderful things. Entire meals would consist of these delicious baked sweet things.
However, eventually you would get sick (literally) of cookies. After a few weeks, you would start to eat cookies the way regular people do: sparingly, only for deserts or snacks.
The US is in the middle stage. We can now eat cookies, but we still think of them as "forbidden fruit." But eventually we will reach a stage where we get sick of them and no longer see them as something special.

Lies. How dare you accuse the Roman Catholic Church of being liars! An Inquisitor will be at your home in 20 minutes.

If they don't arrive in 20 minutes or less is the torture free?

Obviously. Statistics show clearly that the liberal heathens in Europe and Canada, who send their kids to get proper sex ed, have much higher rates of teen pregnancies and STD infections.



Oh, wait. No they don't.

This point keeps getting brought up; however, American schools do teach sex education, and not just abstinence only. There is a movement to make it that way, but George Bush's Dreams != Reality. I'm sure it can only help, but a lack of education is not the single, or even major, reason 1 in 4 girls have a STD.

If they don't arrive in 20 minutes or less is the torture free?

Yes

The US is in the middle stage. We can now eat cookies, but we still think of them as "forbidden fruit." But eventually we will reach a stage where we get sick of them and no longer see them as something special.
Lies and heresy!

Cookies will always be special!

This point keeps getting brought up; however, American schools do teach sex education, and not just abstinence only. There is a movement to make it that way, but George Bush's Dreams != Reality. I'm sure it can only help, but a lack of education is not the single, or even major, reason 1 in 4 girls have a STD.
I beg to differ. If you look up at the figures closely, you'll notice that abstinence-only, conservative red states (and generally poorer) who do not provide readily contraceptives are the place where the rates are overwhelmingly high, raising the national average. Whereas well-off blue states with sex ed have significantly lower rates of both STDs and teen pregnancies.

Basically, lack of education is the main reason. It's just not prevalent everywhere.

I disagree, a simple questionnare and 10-20 minute lecture + retest IF the questions are answered wrong would IMO be much more beneficial in the long run than plain vaccination.

If a person doesn't understand, for example, the difference between the pill and condom a vaccination would IMO be almost wasted.

This is just my opinion though - The fact is that 25% prevalency of STDs in teen girls is a horrible statistic (if true) and requires *drastic* measures to tackle.

I disagree; the immunization isn't "wasted". Whatever you think of her choices later in life the fact remains that she will not get HPV, nor will she put others at risk of HPV infection. An immunization program is only fully effective if it's applied uniformly.

Wow, this thread really exploded. At first it was kinda small, but now it's so big!

I know, it just grew up before our eyes! Pretty soon it'll be out at all hours of the night, doing god-knows-what on sleazy message boards...

Originally Posted by Skaladora View Post
Widespread and free sex, accessible contraceptives and condoms are all that's needed.

fixed for Ryadn

Whoohoo! If I ever take over the government, you can totally help write social policy. ;)

Not a good idea. She thinks that the enjoyment of sex is a sign of low intelligence. She also believes that the crummier your genetics are, the more likely you are to do it. I tried to explain how natural selection works, but she will not listen.

That makes a lot of stuff a whole lot clearer, doesn't it? If only Freud was still around...

I never got the virgin-fetish. No-one here seems able to explain it to me, either.

Assuming 25% of teen girls has an STD..
and assuming that girls who have not had sex do not have an STD...
then I can definitely see where this virgin fixation is coming from.

just 1 in 4?
I like those odds!
'Giggety giggety giggety Allllllright!'

Oh, only now you realize your mistakes. Serves most of the whores right.

Oh, only now you realize your mistakes. Serves most of the whores right.
My word, aren't you in a fine mood this morn?
The grumpy gremlins certainly visited you last night, didn't they.

My word, aren't you in a fine mood this morn?
The grumpy gremlins certainly visited you last night, didn't they.
When it comes to sexual immorality, I am quite this way all the time.

When it comes to sexual immorality, I am quite this way all the time.
The long winter evenings must just fly by in your household.

Oakondra, how would you define the word "whore?"

Oakondra, how would you define the word "whore?"

I am going to propose a prediction and say "Yo momma!"

Gimme a T! Gimme an R! Gimme an O!...

When it comes to sexual immorality, I am quite this way all the time.

Because it is ok for you to define what is sexual morality:rolleyes:

Gimme a T! Gimme an R! Gimme an O!...

TROuble-making teen girls can't keep their chastity belts on?

TROn is not as cool as ultimate frisbee?

TROy is not a real city?

TROll.

Gimme a T! Gimme an R! Gimme an O!...

TROTSKYISM? o.O

Not a good idea. She thinks that the enjoyment of sex is a sign of low intelligence. She also believes that the crummier your genetics are, the more likely you are to do it. I tried to explain how natural selection works, but she will not listen.

Are you adopted by any chance?

:D
I just gave them their solution.
:D

Is that intentionally a phallic symbol?

Is that intentionally a phallic symbol?

LOL!

This point keeps getting brought up; however, American schools do teach sex education, and not just abstinence only. There is a movement to make it that way, but George Bush's Dreams != Reality. I'm sure it can only help, but a lack of education is not the single, or even major, reason 1 in 4 girls have a STD.

"Since 1982, the U.S. government has spent over a $1.5 billion on unproven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs ... Under the leadership of President Bush there has been a continued expansion of investment in these programs with more than $175 million allocated for Fiscal Year 2007 alone.

These programs are prohibited from discussing contraceptives except in the context of failure rates and have never been proven effective. Most recently, a scientifically conducted, multiple-year study by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services, showed that young people who graduate from abstinence-only programs are no more likely than their peers to wait for sex. "

linky (http://www.siecus.org/media/press/press0147.html)

EDIT: J. E. Darroch, D. J. Landry, S. Singh, “Changing Emphases in Sexuality Education in U.S. Public Secondary Schools, 1998-1999,” Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 32, no. 9 (September-October 2000): 204-211, & 265. (http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3220400.html) (emphasis added):

This study reveals large gaps between teachers’ recommendations for sexual health lessons and what is actually taught in the classroom. It indicated that the vast majority of teachers believe that sexuality education courses should instruct students about where to go for birth control (89 percent), factual information about abortion (89 percent), ethical issues about abortion (84 percent) and sexual orientation (78 percent). The study found, however, that instruction in all grades is much less likely to include these topics than was the case approximately 10 years ago. In 1999, 23 percent of surveyed teachers taught abstinence as the only way of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) as compared with two percent in 1988.

*snip*
Sorry, I was unclear. Abstinence-only education does exist and is promoted by the current Bush Administration. (Although I did not have those exact numbers.) I think some states mandate it, too. However, I know for a fact that it is not taught in my town and in many other places, too. But the OP's article refers to the national level, and at the national level it does not exist, yet.
Now, if the article said "1 in 4 Texan girls has a STD," then there would be a fairly clear cause; Texas is one of the states where abstinence only education is the law. But it isn't just Texas, it's California, Kansas, Washington, etc. Actually, probably the best way to test the effectiveness of abstinence-only education is to compare the states, and not the entire US to western Europe. I'd be interested to see what the results of that study would be.

EDIT: After double-checking The Cat-Tribe's post, I saw that 23% of teachers teach abstinence-only education. In percents, what is 1 out of 4? 25%. Hmm....

Sorry, I was unclear. Abstinence-only education does exist and is promoted by the current Bush Administration. (Although I did not have those exact numbers.) I think some states mandate it, too. However, I know for a fact that it is not taught in my town and in many other places, too. But the OP's article refers to the national level, and at the national level it does not exist, yet.
Now, if the article said "1 in 4 Texan girls has a STD," then there would be a fairly clear cause; Texas is one of the states where abstinence only education is the law. But it isn't just Texas, it's California, Kansas, Washington, etc. Actually, probably the best way to test the effectiveness of abstinence-only education is to compare the states, and not the entire US to western Europe. I'd be interested to see what the results of that study would be.

I don't understand how federal programs working nationwide to supplant comprehensive sex education with abstinence-only are not on "the national level." Does every single school teach abstinence-only? Of course not. But it has been a powerful trend across the nation.

Nonetheless, I recognize there is nothing concrete to tie these STD numbers with abstinence-only programs. But it also isn't true as some have claimed in this thread that we have already been consistently trying comprehensive sex education and it has failed.

I don't understand how federal programs working nationwide to supplant comprehensive sex education with abstinence-only are not on "the national level." Does every single school teach abstinence-only? Of course not. But it has been a powerful trend across the nation.
No Child Left Behind requires every public school in the nation to give some form of test. The school must do well enough or they will be blackballed, more or less. It is very concrete.
Federal programs are on the national level, that is true, but they are not "law" law. (I'm sure as a lawyer that's a phrase you use all the time :).) That is, so far a school will not be penalized if it does not teach abstinence-only. It is national, but I see it as still part of a movement, not the institution.

Nonetheless, I recognize there is nothing concrete to tie these STD numbers with abstinence-only programs. But it also isn't true as some have claimed in this thread that we have already been consistently trying comprehensive sex education and it has failed.
No, of course not, and even if it has failed I don't see that a reason to start teaching an even less effective class. I was responding mainly to the claim that the fact 25% of American teenage girls have an STD is become America teaches abstinence only education. That is, at best, a gross generalization. As the numbers you gave show, it's only really gotten momentum in the past twenty years, and is not an American tradition in the same way as, say, lax gun laws are.

just 1 in 4?
I like those odds!
'Giggety giggety giggety Allllllright!'

The moral is: have sex with only three underage girls.

The moral is: have sex with only three underage girls.

Forgot to make one important point. Make sure you are underage as well. Wouldn't want any trouble now. ;)

I've been trying to look at comparable figures for other countries. No luck so far, and my google-fu is weak at the moment.

EDIT: For historical purposes, I found these charts from the CDC interesting.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif

Granted these are only for a couple of the prevalent stds.

Forgot to make one important point. Make sure you are underage as well. Wouldn't want any trouble now. ;)
This could lead to a truly disgusting word problem:
"There are k number of underage girls. Assuming each girl sleeps with four others, what is the minimum, in terms of k, number who will have an STD by the end of the night? Show your work."

I've been trying to look at comparable figures for other countries. No luck so far, and my google-fu is weak at the moment.

I bet the US looks great compared to the infection rates in some of the African nations.

I've been trying to look at comparable figures for other countries. No luck so far, and my google-fu is weak at the moment.

EDIT: For historical purposes, I found these charts from the CDC interesting.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-2.gif

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/images/trends-img-3.gif

Granted these are only for a couple of the prevalent stds.
Those are interesting. What I think is a little weird is that the peak for syphillis was in 1990, after ten years of hearing about the horrors of AIDS. You'd think people would be more cautious.

I bet the US looks great compared to the infection rates in some of the African nations.

Of course it does. But that is hardly impressive.

In before the Feminazis and educational buffs.
*runs*

I'm getting so sick of this "getting in before the feminazis shit".



What should be done and why is this a racially biased statistic?

Promote abstinence? Ask <chosen diety/avatar> for help? Comprehensive and unbiased sex-education?
I'd go with the latter combined with cheaply accessible condoms (and other contraceptives). I'd also warn about possible dangers of being too promiscuous :p

Heck, I'd also go with free and mandatory STD screenings for teens.

1. Because the USA is f*cked?
2. I think sexual education is really important.

everybody gets the vaccine for this one

Well, no, no they don't. It's only new as well.

Do their nether-regions have an aversion to pants?

You are up one point from -74937302 to -74937301, because that was actually funny.

My high school has no sex ed. My junior high had no sex ed. The closest thing was when we got separated by gender and taught about our changing bodies in fifth grade.

Funny enough, we do have a GPA club. (If you bought a valentine on V-Day, you got a pencil from them saying, "Don't gamble with your life! Save sex for marriage!")

Oh, we did watch an AIDS video in Health. In which a woman says that even if you use a condom YOU WILL DIE.

I hate my school.

I hate your school too.

After having tried the former for a couple of centuries, I say we give comprehensive sex ed a good shot before we give up completely.

Unless you'd advocating throwing our collective hands up in the air and giving up, getting used to the idea of unavoidable plagues of STDs.

I think some Christians would actually prefer getting used to the STDs, because "AIDS is the punishment for being gay", "STDs are God's way of saying 'don't have sex' etc.

I think some Christians would actually prefer getting used to the STDs, because "AIDS is the punishment for being gay", "STDs are God's way of saying 'don't have sex' etc.

A lot of Chistians dont actually believe that though. Even the Catholic church doesnt believe that, and we all know how loony they are.

A lot of Chistians dont actually believe that though. Even the Catholic church doesnt believe that, and we all know how loony they are.
I find the last remark incredibly offensive and not a little bigoted.
That being said, you're right, I don't think there is any mainstream denomination which officially claims AIDS or any STD is a punishment. Pat Robertson said something like that, but the Southern Baptist Convention people did not.

I find the last remark incredibly offensive and not a little bigoted.


Oh please. I didnt say catholics. I said the Catholic Church. We all know most Catholics dont listen to the Church.


But, when it takes you until the 1950s to admit that, actually, you were wrong, the Sun is indeed the center of the universe, and when you have it in your official doctrine that you can only use condoms if one of you has AIDS (which was a very recent addition) you are loony.


If you find me attacking the Catholic clergy and Church offensive, grow thicker skin.

Of course it does. But that is hardly impressive.

Of course and was just saying that tongue in cheek. I personally have traveled a lot compared to most Americans and can say it would be very difficult to find a comparable to the United States as far as how diverse the nation is. Maybe the EU as a whole vs the US would be the closest comparison?

I am a Teen in USA

Note to self: don't date anyone!

I am a Teen in USA

Note to self: don't date anyone!



Actually, a better note would be, always wear a rubber.

Oh please. I didnt say catholics. I said the Catholic Church. We all know most Catholics dont listen to the Church.
"We all know...?" Anything that follows that preface I am immediately suspicous of.


But, when it takes you until the 1950s to admit that, actually, you were wrong, the Sun is indeed the center of the universe, and when you have it in your official doctrine that you can only use condoms if one of you has AIDS (which was a very recent addition) you are loony.
Don't be stupid. It took them until the 1990s. :(


If you find me attacking the Catholic clergy and Church offensive, grow thicker skin.
There's another expression I take issue with, "grow thicker skin." There is a difference between having "thick skin" and not finding something offensive. If you listened to me go off on a racist rant and stay calm, I would say you were thicked-skinned; which is good. However, if you listened to me rant and you saw nothing wrong with it, you would just be thick-skulled. There is a difference.

There's another expression I take issue with, "grow thicker skin." There is a difference between having "thick skin" and not finding something offensive. If you listened to me go off on a racist rant and stay calm, I would say you were thicked-skinned; which is good. However, if you listened to me rant and you saw nothing wrong with it, you would just be thick-skulled. There is a difference.


Youre not getting it. I never, ever, said Catholics are stupid. I said the Catholic Church is stupid. Meaning, The Pope and his Cardinals, and some Bishops. If you find that offensive, that is youre problem. There is a difference between saying "Man, I hate the Catholic leadership, theyre idiots." And saying "DAMN NIGGERS ARE ALL CRIMINALS!!!" the main difference being that one is slandering an entire group of people, the other isnt.

Are you offended when people say George Bush is a fuckwit? Because its the same thing. Im insulting a specific institution's leadership. Not the millions of people who are members of the institution, which I would neve do. Especially those Catholic school girls and their sexy, sexy uniforms and repressed sexuality which makes them really hot in bed...but I digress. ;)

So my statement stands, if you are offended if I say the Pope is an r-tard, grow thicker skin.

TROTSKYISM? o.O

TROIKA!

TROIKA!

TREPAK!

(or should I be saying Gulag?)

Youre not getting it. I never, ever, said Catholics are stupid. I said the Catholic Church is stupid. Meaning, The Pope and his Cardinals, and some Bishops. If you find that offensive, that is youre problem.
Well...yes. I don't expect it is anyone else's problem.
There is a difference between saying "Man, I hate the Catholic leadership, theyre idiots." And saying "DAMN NIGGERS ARE ALL CRIMINALS!!!" the main difference being that one is slandering an entire group of people, the other isnt.
You are attacking an entire group of people, "the Pope and his Cardinals, and some Bishops."
you offended when people say George Bush is a fuckwit? Because its the same thing. Im insulting a specific institution's leadership. Not the millions of people who are members of the institution.
I am a little offended by that because there are so many actual complaints you could make about him and aren't. However, the analogy doesn't work: you are not attacking an individual but an institution. A better analogy would be if you insulted the office of the presidency and its validity, which would offend me.

So my statement stands, if you are offended if I say the Pope is an r-tard, grow thicker skin.
Now I'm confused. Why can't you write out the word retard? :)

Before this gets the thread too off track, I don't want an apology or think you are not entitlted to dislike the idea of the Church, many do. However, saying, "even the Church isn't that loony" does nothing but show your contempt; there is nothing useful about it. If you had said, "even the Church, normally the most x, doesn't even say this," or, "the Catholic Church, which preaches x, y, and z, still does not go this far," you would have essentially made the same statement but would have sounded intelligent.

Well...yes. I don't expect it is anyone else's problem.

You are attacking an entire group of people, "the Pope and his Cardinals, and some Bishops."

I am a little offended by that because there are so many actual complaints you could make about him and aren't. However, the analogy doesn't work: you are not attacking an individual but an institution. A better analogy would be if you insulted the office of the presidency and its validity, which would offend me.


Now I'm confused. Why can't you write out the word retard? :)

Before this gets the thread too off track, I don't want an apology or think you are not entitlted to dislike the idea of the Church, many do. However, saying, "even the Church isn't that loony" does nothing but show your contempt; there is nothing useful about it. If you had said, "even the Church, normally the most x, doesn't even say this," or, "the Catholic Church, which preaches x, y, and z, still does not go this far," you would have essentially made the same statement but would have sounded intelligent.


But, thats the problem. I do think the Catholic Church as an institution, The Pope, and anyone else high up, and its doctrines are insane and impractical.

Those are interesting. What I think is a little weird is that the peak for syphillis was in 1990, after ten years of hearing about the horrors of AIDS. You'd think people would be more cautious.

1990 wasn't after ten years of hearing about AIDS, though. AIDS was first "named" in 1981, and for years after that scientists were unsure of the mechanism by which it worked and was spread. The general public (outside of urban and gay communities) was not as a whole conscious of AIDS the way we are now until at least 1986, when HIV was named.

[QUOTE=Amor Pulchritudo;13523236]I'm getting so sick of this "getting in before the feminazis shit".

We're just scary. Rawr. We throw feminist bombs that explode in equal rights shrapnel!

What about a law that demands condom dispensers be installed and constantly restocked in the bathrooms of every place that serves food?

Done with both the men's and womens bathroom, so both have access to them.

Too, get rid of the aversion, guilt, "sin", denial, [insert word here], of masterbation; if people with raging hormones (the puberty years), are not thinking below the belt, then there is not really a foreseeable way for someone to be infected.

Combined with sex ed, of not only what happens after "normal" heterosexual sex, but also of homosexual/lesbian sex. This addition is based on the rampant spread of anally spread STD's.

What about teaching about g0y (with a zero) while they are at it?

-Rafe

Bullshit.

Don't believe that one in four girls I know has an STD for even a heartbeat.

Don't believe that one in four girls I know has an STD for even a heartbeat.
Perhaps you haven't licked around all the right blemishes.
:p

A lot of Chistians dont actually believe that though. Even the Catholic church doesnt believe that, and we all know how loony they are.

That's why I said "some".

We're just scary. Rawr. We throw feminist bombs that explode in equal rights shrapnel!

FEMBOTS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HQJpza5lLA

For all but 2-3 months of Grade 0 I went to school in public schools in rural Missouri. The closest we came to sex ed. was high school biology and watching the local animals (or your cousin (except for me as I wasn't related to anyone out there while they were related to everyone)) "do it like they do on the Discovery Channel." Seriously, watching a couple cows "doing it" really takes out a lot of the mystery, and then there's watching the animals "do it" too.

Despite all that I picked up a good chunk of my own personal "sex ed." from books (I recommend Stephen King over Anne Rice just because her sex scenes are way more creepy and fit to give young children the willies (pun not intended) about sex) and the internet (and not just porn). Now, granted that I've got several test scores that say I'm a genius or close to it, and several decades of being a consumate slacker to "prove" it, I don't think it takes a genius to figure out what works, what doesn't work, what happens, what doesn't happen, and in general to get a good list of What I Shouldn't Do With My Genitals together before you turn 18.

Of course considering that there's a Darwin Award out there for a guy who electrocuted himself with a pair of belt sanders, a couch, and an over-active libido it seems some people decide to put off making that list until after they can't have sex.

Be that as it may "under-age" sex and STDs have been problems since time immemorial and every generation forgets or ignores what previous generations before it learned the hard way. Folks in the US today point to Madonna or Britney, TV or the movies, and say, "This is making our children want to have sex at a young age in order to be popular/fit in/get friends and it's wrong" without taking the time to realize that it's been going on for millenia.

Over the last 3,000 years our ability to affect our environments and our knowledge of how our bodies work has increased so much that what used to be the "very old" age of 30 is now too young to be "middle-aged" and we routinely have people living to be 90+. In spite of this our fundamental biology has hardy changed at all and people either ignore this fact or are outright ignorant of it which results in lots of people complaining about "children" having sex at 15 when 2,000 years ago 15 year old "adults" (or nearly so) were having sex just fine. Technology and society have changed but biology hasn't.

On a more constructive and less philosophical note, just get a bunch of the US Air Force's STD briefing videos and display them to middle school classes. I'm sure it'll help. One picture I saw got me thinking, "I do not want to know what she has" only to hear the announcer say, "This man has...." :eek:

On a more constructive and less philosophical note, just get a bunch of the US Air Force's STD briefing videos and display them to middle school classes. I'm sure it'll help. One picture I saw got me thinking, "I do not want to know what she has" only to hear the announcer say, "This man has...." :eek:
My Freshman Health teacher had something that we called The Book Of Pain. It was a binder containing full-color photos of various people with STDs or related genital problems. Each semester, on the first day of class, The Book Of Pain would be introduced.

"This class," the teacher would inform his audience, "is about how to not end up in The Book Of Pain."

I swear, when he showed us the picture of a guy with testicular torsion, I felt a twinge in my non-existent balls.

Whoohoo! If I ever take over the government, you can totally help write social policy. ;)

*Votes for Ryadn*

Now I'm confused. Why can't you write out the word retard? :)

The 'e' on his keyboard is missing?

Isn't HPV the one that can cause cervical cancer? Yeah, that's not harmless.

I said that HPV is *relatively* harmless.

When approx. 80% of American women will have contracted the disease by age of 50 (source: wikipedia) the mortality rate caused by the cancer is relatively low: According to this (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_cervical_cancer_8.asp) roughly 3,870 women with cervical cancer will die this year out of roughly 100 million HPV carriers.

That's 3.9 deaths per 100,000 female HPV carriers or 1.3 deaths per 100,000 people considering the entire population of USA. For comparison HIV has a death rate of 5.4 out of 100,000 (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_hiv_dea_rat-health-hiv-death-rate) with prevalency of HIV being mere 3 permille (http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm) or ~1,000,000 carriers.

But any way, it's somewhat understandable if it's gotten some hype. Vaccines are pretty fantastic things to invent. For every vaccines you get it's basically a disease that (almost) nobody will ever get ever again. Ever.
It only means a mutated version of disease has a chance of evolving and defeating the vaccine IF everyone is not vaccinated and the virus is destroyed = Global free & mandatory vaccinations. :)

Also, I'm not convinced excessive vaccination is good for human health in general (eg. explosion of allergies, autism-hype, what not) even though the side-effects are usually heavily outweighed by the gains.

edit:
In this case though, vaccinations seem to be the only way to tackle the disease - I had no idea how prevalent the HPV was until I googled it today.

I still think vaccination shouldn't just be given as seperate cure but instead bound clearly as a part of sex education in general because while HPV is prevalent overall it is a relatively harmless virus as most (80%? 90%? moar?) HPV cases do remain completely asymptomatic.

Are you adopted by any chance?

:p No. But according to her she has only had sex twice in her life. You must admit that that number is startlingly low. I would imagine you may even doubt the truth that statement. However, if you knew her as I knew her, you would believe it.

Bullshit.

Don't believe that one in four girls I know has an STD for even a heartbeat.

1. The CDC is well-known for making up numbers. :rolleyes:

2. You do realize there is a difference between a statistical probability nationwide and disease rates among a set group of young women.

3. How would you know?

I said that HPV is *relatively* harmless. *snip*

Cute use of the term "relatively" to mean "not really at all but I'll say it anyway."

Cute use of the term "relatively" to mean "not really at all but I'll say it anyway."

HPV is completely harmless for vast majority of those 100 million carriers.

The cancer which it is primary cause of will be the cause of death - at current rate - of 195,000 of those 100,000,000 people over the rest of their lifetime (3,870 x 50 years).

For comparison, another "easily" avoidable disease (just stop smoking and curb car/industry emissions):
Women's Lung cancer 71,030 deaths expected in 2008 in USA (source (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=87330)).

Which totals to 3.6 million female deaths during the same timeframe (constant rate ie. 71k x 50 years).

I'm not touching other quite easily avoidable lifestyle diseases like most cardio-vascular conditions.


My point?
HPV is not really threatening to an individual - clearly, because it's prevalence is very high but any actual harm done to a carrier is extremely rare - however it is still a harmful epidemic as a whole to society: 4000 deaths per year is a considerable statistic but for an average female it represents a 0.32% chance of dying - 3.2 out of a thousand dead women.

I wager that if the prevalence would be between 5-10% instead of 50-80% we probably wouldn't even be talking about HPV or cervical cancer.


(Pardon my US centricity here, but the topic is about US of A)

My Freshman Health teacher had something that we called The Book Of Pain. It was a binder containing full-color photos of various people with STDs or related genital problems. Each semester, on the first day of class, The Book Of Pain would be introduced.

"This class," the teacher would inform his audience, "is about how to not end up in The Book Of Pain."

I swear, when he showed us the picture of a guy with testicular torsion, I felt a twinge in my non-existent balls.

This is a good idea, although had I seen pictures of syphillis in high school instead of college, I might still be a virgin. :(

(Pardon my US centricity here, but the topic is about US of A)

I was going to say "this is why other countries hate us", but really, this is why I hate us. :rolleyes:

:p No. But according to her she has only had sex twice in her life. You must admit that that number is startlingly low. I would imagine you may even doubt the truth that statement. However, if you knew her as I knew her, you would believe it.

Well, I was just going to say that if


Sex is for stupid people and
She's had sex.


Then it stands to reason that she is stupid and her advice untrustworthy. It's deliciously circular.

I was going to say "this is why other countries hate us", but really, this is why I hate us. :rolleyes:

Why exactly?
United States of America.

Well, I was just going to say that if


Sex is for stupid people and
She's had sex.



Well...no. According to her the more you have sex, the stupider you are. Therefor, she has an intelligence well above the norm.

Then it stands to reason that she is stupid and her advice untrustworthy. It's deliciously circular.

I would not take the advice of someone who thought that Mexicans had better pottery-making genetics anyhow. She is most certainly a nice person, but the walls that keep her ignorant are made of adamant.

Well...no. According to her the more you have sex, the stupider you are. Therefor, she has an intelligence well above the norm.

I dont want to insult your mom, but thats an idiot mentality. Especially since there are tons of studies out there that show that sex improves your health.

I dont want to insult your mom, but thats an idiot mentality. Especially since there are tons of studies out there that show that sex improves your health.

I cited many...she calls them "bunk".

I cited many...she calls them "bunk".


Then that is called willful ignorance.

Then that is called willful ignorance.

Like I said, "the walls that keep her ignorant are made of adamant".

Like I said, "adamant walls".

Didnt see that. Well, we're on the same page then.

Didnt see that. Well, we're on the same page then.


She told me I was closed minded. :(

She told me I was closed minded. :(

Psh. Whatever. Youre one of the brighter kids out there.

Psh. Whatever. Youre one of the brighter kids out there.

Unfortunately she used my intelligence (if it does exist) as an example.

"Have you ever had sex?"

"No."

"There you go. Why do you think you are intelligent?"

":rolleyes:"

She is like that hypothetical doctor who tells fleas to jump. They jump. He then takes their legs off. "Jump," says he. They do not. He writes: "Note: Fleas cannot hear without legs."

Unfortunately she used my intelligence (if it does exist) as an example.

"Have you ever had sex?"

"No."

"There you go. Why do you think you are intelligent?"

":rolleyes:"

She is like that hypothetical doctor who tells fleas to jump. They jump. He then takes their legs off. "Jump," says he. They do not. He writes: "Note: Fleas cannot hear without legs."

LOL

exactly where in Chicago was this study centered? Was it a...um... economically challenged section of the city? I don't think a study of 800 people in a city in one part of the country can be applied as a rule across the whole country. I have a feeling that this is being sensationalized by the media.

exactly where in Chicago was this study centered? Was it a...um... economically challenged section of the city? I don't think a study of 800 people in a city in one part of the country can be applied as a rule across the whole country. I have a feeling that this is being sensationalized by the media.
Try following the link provided in the OP, and you'll be able to answer your own question.

"The study by CDC researcher Dr. Sara Forhan is an analysis of nationally representative data on 838 girls who participated in a 2003-04 government health survey."

So no. This was not simply a study of poor people.