1 in 4 teen girls has sexual disease

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Atreus21
How is it that 1 in 4 kids have HPV and Planned Parenthood blames the people who tell kids not to have sex?

Because if you tell your kids to just not have sex, they won't. Right?

:roll:

You mean that telling kids not to have sex is more likely to make them have sex than telling them HOW to have sex?

It means they are more likely to get pregnant or say... an STD when they do have sex. This is why a large number of school districts

Abstinence based sex education has proven to be a colossal failure. Colossal. States have voluntarily given up on federal funding in order to avoid having to teach it because it is so ineffective. Normal sex ed doesn't teach kids how to have sex. (shockingly enough they can figure that out on their own) It teaches them how to have safe sex.

Safe sex is still sex, and sex is inherently unsafe. That's the problem that people refuse to acknowledge. The best way not to get an STD is (shockingly) not to have sex. The best way to get an STD is (again shockingly) by having sex. The notion, then, that we blame those who support abstinence for kids not being abstinent is ludicrous.

Contrary to popular belief, kids do have a choice when it comes to having sex. It's not the inexorable inevitability to which all of teenage mankind is bound.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Atreus21
How is it that 1 in 4 kids have HPV and Planned Parenthood blames the people who tell kids not to have sex?

Because if you tell your kids to just not have sex, they won't. Right?

:roll:

You mean that telling kids not to have sex is more likely to make them have sex than telling them HOW to have sex?

It means they are more likely to get pregnant or say... an STD when they do have sex. This is why a large number of school districts

Abstinence based sex education has proven to be a colossal failure. Colossal. States have voluntarily given up on federal funding in order to avoid having to teach it because it is so ineffective. Normal sex ed doesn't teach kids how to have sex. (shockingly enough they can figure that out on their own) It teaches them how to have safe sex.

Safe sex is still sex, and sex is inherently unsafe. That's the problem that people refuse to acknowledge. The best way not to get an STD is (shockingly) not to have sex. The best way to get an STD is (again shockingly) by having sex. The notion, then, that we blame those who support abstinence for kids not being abstinent is ludicrous.

Contrary to popular belief, kids do have a choice when it comes to having sex. It's not the inexorable inevitability to which all of teenage mankind is bound.

Abstinence only education has been shown not to work... over and over and over again. It's worse then useless, it's expensive and useless.

You are attempting to misrepresent my argument. No one is blaming those promoting abstinence for teenagers not being abstinent. What we are saying (and what the research backs up) is that abstinence only education has no effect on teenagers' sexual behavior and when they DO have sex, they are less likely to mitigate their risk. Yes sex is inherently unsafe. To say that sex is not inevitable ignores the fact that sex is extremely probable. You now have two options, either attempt to make that sex less unsafe, or ignore the problem and continue onwards with a failed policy. There is absolutely no downside to teaching kids how to to be safer.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Atreus21
How is it that 1 in 4 kids have HPV and Planned Parenthood blames the people who tell kids not to have sex?

Because if you tell your kids to just not have sex, they won't. Right?

:roll:

You mean that telling kids not to have sex is more likely to make them have sex than telling them HOW to have sex?

It means they are more likely to get pregnant or say... an STD when they do have sex. This is why a large number of school districts

Abstinence based sex education has proven to be a colossal failure. Colossal. States have voluntarily given up on federal funding in order to avoid having to teach it because it is so ineffective. Normal sex ed doesn't teach kids how to have sex. (shockingly enough they can figure that out on their own) It teaches them how to have safe sex.

The notion, then, that we blame those who support abstinence for kids not being abstinent is ludicrous.

Contrary to popular belief, kids do have a choice when it comes to having sex. It's not the inexorable inevitability to which all of teenage mankind is bound.

No, people blame Sex Ed classes that ONLY teach abstinence. You have to teach more on the subject then just saying "Don't have sex" because guess what, even if they don't in HS, they probably will in college.
This is similar to having a drivers ed course and not teaching how to recover from losing traction, or how to fix a tire because they shouldn't lose control and will never need to replace a tire.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
Condoms suck and most people realize this. That is probably why STDs are back on the rise. But like I said. HPV isnt necessarily prevented by using the all magical condom. Any infected area's not in direct contact with the condom but with bare skin will transmit.

I would be interested to know if the sex ed classes in school teach this.

Yes sex ed classes teach that.

And no, condoms do not suck. The June 2007 American Journal of Public Health ran an article finding that people who used condoms from the outset of their sexual experiences were long term less then half as likely to have various STI's then those who did not. No, they don't solve everything... and certainly even if you do use them bad things can happen. A 50% decrease in disease transmission rates though? That's extremely effective.

Uh I think you misunderstand what I mean by "suck". Not that they suck in terms of helping to prevent STDs. That they suck in terms of the experience. Thus people may not be using them as much and that is why we are seeing a rise in pregnancies and STD's.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Donny Baker

Originally posted by: Atreus21
How is it that 1 in 4 kids have HPV and Planned Parenthood blames the people who tell kids not to have sex?

Because if you tell your kids to just not have sex, they won't. Right?

:roll:

You mean that telling kids not to have sex is more likely to make them have sex than telling them HOW to have sex?

It means they are more likely to get pregnant or say... an STD when they do have sex. This is why a large number of school districts

Abstinence based sex education has proven to be a colossal failure. Colossal. States have voluntarily given up on federal funding in order to avoid having to teach it because it is so ineffective. Normal sex ed doesn't teach kids how to have sex. (shockingly enough they can figure that out on their own) It teaches them how to have safe sex.

Safe sex is still sex, and sex is inherently unsafe. That's the problem that people refuse to acknowledge. The best way not to get an STD is (shockingly) not to have sex. The best way to get an STD is (again shockingly) by having sex. The notion, then, that we blame those who support abstinence for kids not being abstinent is ludicrous.

Contrary to popular belief, kids do have a choice when it comes to having sex. It's not the inexorable inevitability to which all of teenage mankind is bound.

Abstinence only education has been shown not to work... over and over and over again. It's worse then useless, it's expensive and useless.

You are attempting to misrepresent my argument. No one is blaming those promoting abstinence for teenagers not being abstinent. What we are saying (and what the research backs up) is that abstinence only education has no effect on teenagers' sexual behavior and when they DO have sex, they are less likely to mitigate their risk. Yes sex is inherently unsafe. To say that sex is not inevitable ignores the fact that sex is extremely probable. You now have two options, either attempt to make that sex less unsafe, or ignore the problem and continue onwards with a failed policy. There is absolutely no downside to teaching kids how to to be safer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23574940/

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the study shows that ?the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price.?

This is the quote I was referring to in my original post.

I'm not concerned with whether or not abstinence-only sex education has been effective. Effectiveness, to me, doesn't dictate what is right or wrong. If a policy fails, it doesn't mean it was wrong to implement it.

I see this issue as pretty simple. The premise is that sex, however tantalyzing, is avoidable.

If having sex as a teenager is bad, and having sex requires a choice, the most obvious answer to me is that we should promote the choice not to have sex.

If sex were inevitable, promoting safe sex would be understandable. If sex is avoidable, we should encourage kids to avoid it, however difficult that may be.

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Duddy

Originally posted by: QueBert

Originally posted by: ryan256

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
i dont buy this at all.

edit: I don't buy that 1 in 4 number is for everyone in the country. That is believable in inner city environments amongst blacks.

Well... they also make up the vast majority of teenage mothers so the statistics fit.

a vast majority what percentage wise? There are more white teen mothers in America than any other race. This is directly because there are more white teenagers, the actual percentages put black teens at the top, but when it comes to actual numbers white teens mothers out number just about all other races combined.

You need to look up majority and what it means, I don't care if % wise is higher, majority is simply the total number and nothing else.

last numbers I saw put about 225k for white teens and 120k for black teens. Where's the majority there?

Non-Hispanic white teens(56.9 per 1,000 teens ages 15-19 in 2000)

Black non-Hispanic teens (151.0 per 1,000)

Hispanic teens (132.0 per 1,000)




2004 Populations of Adolescents Aged 15-19 by Race/Ethnicity:

13,155,572 White Alone, Non-Hispanic

3,144,057 Black Alone, Non-Hispanic

229,385 Native American Alone, Non-Hispanic

755,554 Asian Alone, Non-Hispanic

867,974 Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Alone, Non-Hispanic

N/A Two or More Races, Non-Hispanic
3,332,814 Hispanic (Any Race)

21,485,356 Total


Number of Teen Pregnancies to Girls Aged 15-19 by Race/Ethnicity, 2000

346,980 Non-Hispanic Whites

235,650 African Americans

204,980 Hispanics


Teen Pregnancy Rate for Girls Aged 15-19 by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 (Rate per 1,000)

55 Non-Hispanic Whites

153 African Americans

138 Hispanics





The population of black teen girls 15-19 is alittle over 10,000,00 less than white teen girls of the same age.

Yet black teen girl pregnancy rates are ~3 times higher. (They are more active)

2% of white teens were pregnant. 7.6% of black teens were pregnant.

PS: The world runs on percentages, not actual numbers.

Source: http://www.teenpregnancy.org/a...isplay.asp?ID=4&sID=31

You looked up all those numbers, and you completely missed his point.

Originally posted by: Duddy
Black teen girls are more sexually active, and become sexually active sooner so that 1 in 2 number is highly disturbing. It's at an epidemic scale.

WTF is happening to sex ed classes or abstinence seminars at schools?

Aren't you the relatively young guy who knocked up his girlfriend?

No I'm not. I'm the 21 year old who knocked up his fiance. This study refers to 15-19 year olds. Not 21 year olds who are engaged before hand. Ding dong.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23574940/

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the study shows that ?the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price.?

This is the quote I was referring to in my original post.

I'm not concerned with whether or not abstinence-only sex education has been effective. Effectiveness, to me, doesn't dictate what is right or wrong. If a policy fails, it doesn't mean it was wrong to implement it.

I see this issue as pretty simple. The premise is that sex, however tantalyzing, is avoidable.

If having sex as a teenager is bad, and having sex requires a choice, the most obvious answer to me is that we should promote the choice not to have sex.

If sex were inevitable, promoting safe sex would be understandable. If sex is avoidable, we should encourage kids to avoid it, however difficult that may be.

But then we should also teach them to have sex responsibly if they do... as studies show very clearly that they are going to anyway.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

If having sex as a teenager is bad, and having sex requires a choice, the most obvious answer to me is that we should promote the choice not to have sex.

If sex were inevitable, promoting safe sex would be understandable. If sex is avoidable, we should encourage kids to avoid it, however difficult that may be.

The only way to guarantee not getting into a car accident is to never be in or near a car. We still educate kids on safe driving and wearing seatbelts.

To expect teens to not have sex is to expect kids to not eat candy offered to them. Rather than tell the kids "no, don't eat candy" we try to educate children on a "balanced diet".

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23574940/

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the study shows that ?the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price.?

This is the quote I was referring to in my original post.

I'm not concerned with whether or not abstinence-only sex education has been effective. Effectiveness, to me, doesn't dictate what is right or wrong. If a policy fails, it doesn't mean it was wrong to implement it.

I see this issue as pretty simple. The premise is that sex, however tantalyzing, is avoidable.

If having sex as a teenager is bad, and having sex requires a choice, the most obvious answer to me is that we should promote the choice not to have sex.

If sex were inevitable, promoting safe sex would be understandable. If sex is avoidable, we should encourage kids to avoid it, however difficult that may be.

But then we should also teach them to have sex responsibly if they do... as studies show very clearly that they are going to anyway.

Then that would make the abstinence argument disengenuous.

It's either one or the other. We can't have it both ways.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: Atreus21

If having sex as a teenager is bad, and having sex requires a choice, the most obvious answer to me is that we should promote the choice not to have sex.

If sex were inevitable, promoting safe sex would be understandable. If sex is avoidable, we should encourage kids to avoid it, however difficult that may be.

The only way to guarantee not getting into a car accident is to never be in or near a car. We still educate kids on safe driving and wearing seatbelts.

To expect teens to not have sex is to expect kids to not eat candy offered to them. Rather than tell the kids "no, don't eat candy" we try to educate children on a "balanced diet".

Driving isn't an activity we engage in strictly for the fun of it. It has a real world use, and hence we deem that the risks we incur in its use are acceptable considering the benefit.

Sex among teenagers is not like this. The benefit of teenage sex (feeling very good) doesn't justify the risk (unwanted pregnancy, contracting STDs).

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: QueBert
my point was simple to correct what was said about "a majority majority are black" all the numbers you posted were spot on maybe, but it doesn't change the fact the statement dude made was incorrect. Majority means more, not a higher percentage.

as last poster said you completely missed my point and posted stuff that actually proves what I said. If that was your intent - I guess thanks are in order

That WAS my intent, not sure how mugs missed that.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: Atreus21

If having sex as a teenager is bad, and having sex requires a choice, the most obvious answer to me is that we should promote the choice not to have sex.

If sex were inevitable, promoting safe sex would be understandable. If sex is avoidable, we should encourage kids to avoid it, however difficult that may be.

The only way to guarantee not getting into a car accident is to never be in or near a car. We still educate kids on safe driving and wearing seatbelts.

To expect teens to not have sex is to expect kids to not eat candy offered to them. Rather than tell the kids "no, don't eat candy" we try to educate children on a "balanced diet".

Driving isn't an activity we engage in strictly for the fun of it. It has a real world use, and hence we deem that the risks we incur in its use are acceptable considering the benefit.

Sex among teenagers is not like this. The benefit of teenage sex (feeling very good) doesn't justify the risk (unwanted pregnancy, contracting STDs).

If you drink, don't park. Accidents cause people.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23574940/

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the study shows that ?the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price.?

This is the quote I was referring to in my original post.

I'm not concerned with whether or not abstinence-only sex education has been effective. Effectiveness, to me, doesn't dictate what is right or wrong. If a policy fails, it doesn't mean it was wrong to implement it.

I see this issue as pretty simple. The premise is that sex, however tantalyzing, is avoidable.

If having sex as a teenager is bad, and having sex requires a choice, the most obvious answer to me is that we should promote the choice not to have sex.

If sex were inevitable, promoting safe sex would be understandable. If sex is avoidable, we should encourage kids to avoid it, however difficult that may be.

But then we should also teach them to have sex responsibly if they do... as studies show very clearly that they are going to anyway.

Then that would make the abstinence argument disengenuous.

It's either one or the other. We can't have it both ways.

No it wouldn't at all. You would do exactly what sex education classes all over the country and the world do. Promote abstinence as the best course of action for them, but also educate them on how to best protect themselves in case they choose to ignore that advice.

There really is no credible argument for abstinence only education... it's been completely blown out of the water by all responsible research.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: Atreus21

If having sex as a teenager is bad, and having sex requires a choice, the most obvious answer to me is that we should promote the choice not to have sex.

If sex were inevitable, promoting safe sex would be understandable. If sex is avoidable, we should encourage kids to avoid it, however difficult that may be.

The only way to guarantee not getting into a car accident is to never be in or near a car. We still educate kids on safe driving and wearing seatbelts.

To expect teens to not have sex is to expect kids to not eat candy offered to them. Rather than tell the kids "no, don't eat candy" we try to educate children on a "balanced diet".

Driving isn't an activity we engage in strictly for the fun of it. It has a real world use, and hence we deem that the risks we incur in its use are acceptable considering the benefit.

Sex among teenagers is not like this. The benefit of teenage sex (feeling very good) doesn't justify the risk (unwanted pregnancy, contracting STDs).

How is that any different than adults having casual sex?

I think you've got some issues...

 

[Duddy]

Yeah, once they hit puberty, it's naturally sex time. Doesn't mean it's right or good, but it's nature.

 

[Jeff7]

I think I know part of the cause of this. I just got a "male enlargement" spam titled, "I wanted to give someone a sexually transmitted disease (e.g., herpes, AIDS)."

I guess the teens see these things and take it to heart.

Originally posted by: Duddy
Yeah, once they hit puberty, it's naturally sex time. Doesn't mean it's right or good, but it's nature.

I bet you that King Tut had himself a fine harem, and he died at what, age 14 or 15?

 

[SampSon]

Sluts.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think if most highschool kids 16+ years or older took the Human Sexuality class I took in college their eyes might open up quite a bit.

The class was not only informative but laid out sex in physical and emotional states. The STD's they went over was enough to scare nearly anybody into not wanting to bang random people. Of course i am sure the end of the class parents will have a problem. Becuase it dealt with sexual positions with movies to boot.

Kids under 16 I highly doubt they will have the brain capacity to take it in and understand it.

Edit: And yes this class did teach abstinence. And it made the point very clear. The only way to protect yourself 100% is to not have sex. However it wasnt preachy and the way it was laid out(no pun intended). You come to the conclusion well before the professor even brings it up.

My 10th grade Microbiology textbook had pictures of a female Herpes crotch, a chancre filled penis from syphilis, a female genital warts (HPV) crotch, and many others I don't remember.

This was in highschool just after doing Anatomy and Physiology.
Those pictures sent shivers down my spine.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Don't tell kids about condoms, telling them not to have sex before marriage will work! :roll:

It worked for me :roll:

 

[JulesMaximus]

Breaking news: I'd like to fuck 3 out of 4 teen girls.

 

[moshquerade]

oh my

did that come out right?

 

[SampSon]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Don't tell kids about condoms, telling them not to have sex before marriage will work! :roll:

It worked for me :roll:

The vast majority of the rest of the world doesn't work that way.

You wouldn't drive a car with out test driving it first ... etc etc.
In your case you would, but it's not like you were in the market for a performance car, because you obiously don't enjoy driving.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Mike: Well man, my daughter has an STD
Joe: Shit dude that's terrible.
Mike: Yeah it is. But, the good news is, she knows how to put a condom on a banana!
Joe: Thank God for that!

Heh, I know among most girls my age, there tends to be the feeling that condoms aren't needed as long as the girl's on birth control. People tend to think that they and their partners couldn't possibly have STDs.
And even among people who do use condoms, how many do you think use condoms for oral sex?

BTW, presumably most people are born without an STD. Where do so many gets STDs from then? (unless I'm wrong and many people are born with STDs, which makes these whole STD transmission rate studies worthless since many could have had the diseases from birth)

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Duddy
Aren't you the relatively young guy who knocked up his girlfriend?

No I'm not. I'm the 21 year old who knocked up his fiance. This study refers to 15-19 year olds. Not 21 year olds who are engaged before hand. Ding dong.

Ding dong indeed, you knocked up your 19 year old girlfriend (at the time) who definitely falls into the category. And then got engaged to her.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=y&keyword1=girlfriend

Trust me I'm NOT EVEN CLOSE to complaining.


I'm 20 and she's 19.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ey=y&keyword1=pregnant

I just got back from a pool party and the people all started smoking weed, so I told my girl (who is pregnant)

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: SampSon
because you obiously don't enjoy driving.

Or maybe he sees sex as something that is not just meant to be thrown around with recreational usage. Try not to be so arrogant, just because you have no respect for something, don't try and pin your lack of self-respect on someone who has a bit of decency.