March 12, 2008

One quarter of teenage girls in the U.S. have an S.T.D. [NYT] “The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure [...] and teenage girls are paying the real price.”
posted by Capt. Renault 16 years ago
  • Well, don't look at me. I couldn't have possibly gotten to even a tenth of them by myself.
  • Thanks. I'm ruling them out as sex partners as of this minute.
  • I'm no scientists, but as a layman a sample of 838 seems a bit small. I guess it's probably tough to get bigger numbers, though. Anyhoo, even if that's the case it's still pretty alarming. Time for some frank, real-life education for our youngsters.
  • TUM--there has been, and as a result Frank is wanted in six states.
  • TUM: Sample size of 838 in a population of 13,000,000 (est) gives 3.4% margin of error according to this site.
  • Well, of COURSE our abstinence only education is working. Why would you think not? *headdesk, repeat
  • So, um, er, does no one care how many teenage boys have STDs? Why? Or did they look and find out that it's only 5 or so, and that the others just have callused hands and no clean socks (etc) and that it's not really newsworthy and would just depress them anyway? Just strikes me as strange that it's only the girls being discussed.
  • Cause girls are sluts, yo.
  • That is odd, dilettante. My guess is that the discovery that HPV can cause cervical cancer is what makes it a bit more worrisome for the girls. (I threw my cervix back in '96, so hello sailor!)
  • testing boys is more difficult. Almost unpossible.
  • what does one win for catching yer cervix, TUM?
  • It's the new thing for the bride to throw at wedding receptions. Garters are so 2007.
  • Just as well. I caught a garter one time at an outdoor wedding. The fucker bit me. At least those things aren't venomous.
  • I heard a radio interview with one of the scientists who conducted the study and they said they had done an earlier study of teen boys, and that the infection rate was much lower. He explained this by saying that infection patterns differ by gender (I guess it's easier for women to catch STDs?) and that teen boys tend to date girls their own age, but teen girls tend to date older guys, which may open them up to a population of men with more infections. I'd probably add that teen girls often don't have the guts (or self-esteem, or whatever) to demand condom use. Add in a stupid abstinence-only program that teaches that condoms are ineffective against STDs, and you've got a recipe for disaster.
  • Old fart observation: In my youth, girls publicly making out with girls = 0. Today, IRL and on the web = common. Perhaps the young ladies are swapping more than spit.
  • Just strikes me as strange that it's only the girls being discussed. Cause girls are sluts, yo. I'm assuming Nick was kidding. BUT Yes, it's all about punishing girls/women for their sexuality Nothing's changed since yer GramMa was in high school, AFAIC. Today I listened to two senior boys bragging about "f@#&ing the school 'ho." Needless to say, I sent them to the office for inappropriate language with great glee.
  • Boys are expected to be sex-crazed. Girls are expected to be chaste. Only 10% of boys are officially doing it with other boys. So there's 90% of the energy of young lust going to waste? Harness it somehow.
  • The thing that gets me is this. Anyone with all the facts and half a brain can draw the conclusion that not having sex is the only guarantee against pregnancy and STD's. Why does anyone need a whole course of study devoted to the glaringly obvious? Any attempt to draw students' conclusions for them is bound to fail.
  • Problem is that while not having sex may seem to be the best way not to get STDs, the best way to get teenagers not to have sex is to bore them to death about sex in health class. Nothing kills the libido like a nice cut away picture of a urethra. Okay, maybe I'm being a bit silly - but we all need to re-read homunculus's link to the "Pro Teen Sex and Unwanted Pregnancy" movement, which is the best name for the abstinence only movement that I've heard. Kids are going to have sex, no matter what, because they have hormones and it feels good. But if you give them the information to arm themselves, they will have smarter (and apparently later) sex. I'm giving my kids sex ed the minute they are able to even ask where babies come from. If they want diagrams, they are getting them. I expect lots of "oohhh, gross" reactions for the first 12 years or so, but that's better than the "I didn't know pre-cum has active sperm" or "but I didn't know you could get an STD from oral sex" reactions.