You better wrap it up . . . or abstain

[BaliBabyDoc]

yahoo

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Infections with the virus that causes genital herpes are common among teen girls, a new study shows.

While none of the young women in the study had oral or genital herpes symptoms, some of those who tested positive for the virus were shedding it in their vaginal area, meaning it would be possible for them to transmit the infection to others . . .

It's always what you don't see that gets you. It's often hard to get this message across to adolescents and young adults alike.

At the study's outset, they found, 59.6 percent of the women tested positive for HSV 1, while 13.5 percent carried HSV 2. During the follow-up period, from 1999 to 2004, four of the study participants contracted new HSV 1 infections, while seven acquired HSV 2.

So a majority have cold stores (probably), while 1/7 have other type of 'gift that keeps on giving.'

They conclude, "HSV infections are common in adolescent women." They point out that efforts to reduce these infections "need to target children before adolescence."

In general, I object to some of the language used in this article. I don't care what they look like . . . 14-17 is a girl. There's no such creature as an adolescent woman! But the take home is that preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases requires EARLY intervention.

 

[Genx87]

Isnt Herpes simplex the kissing virus?

The article wasnt very good at explaining much about the actual study. How was the virus believed to be contracted? afaik you can get this from kissing, sexual contact(oral, genital), or you are even able to transfer it from your mouth to your genitals(use your imagination). And Condom use doesnt always protect you from it either as the blisters arent always located on a location a condom can protect you from.

My experiences with sex ed and drug education is the younger they are, the less likely they are to understand the risks and the more likely they are to try what you are telling them if bad.

What is the right age? I dont know for sure but I am thinking right around 9th grade.
Somehow you need to really make it hit home the consequences of some of these actions while not making it so obvious a scare tactic they dont believe you.

 

[zendari]

Keeping your legs closed would be a proper intervention.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Mononucleosis is the kissing virus . . . technically Epstein Barr (EBV). But the dirty little secret that doctors don't tell their patients . . . most people have herpes.

The herpes family is huge. It includes EBV (human herpes virus 4), CMV, cold sores (HSV1), genital herpes (HSV2), and of course herpes zoster . . . also called varicella . . . also called shingles . . . also called chicken friggin pox!

No matter which one you get . . . you got it for life.

Condoms are great . . . if you use them. It's certainly better than waiting for divine intervention.

If you wait until the 9th grade to start sex ed, it's all over except for the crying and valacyclovir.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari
Keeping your legs closed would be a proper intervention.

As someone else once said, most people who abstain aren't doing so because of choice.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Mononucleosis is the kissing virus . . . technically Epstein Barr (EBV). But the dirty little secret that doctors don't tell their patients . . . most people have herpes.

The herpes family is huge. It includes EBV (human herpes virus 4), CMV, cold sores (HSV1), genital herpes (HSV2), and of course herpes zoster . . . also called varicella . . . also called shingles . . . also called chicken friggin pox!

No matter which one you get . . . you got it for life.

Condoms are great . . . if you use them. It's certainly better than waiting for divine intervention.

If you wait until the 9th grade to start sex ed, it's all over except for the crying and valacyclovir.

Like I said, when in highschool I was on a comittee as a Senior going around to the local junior highs to speak to them about sex ed and drugs. The kids usually didnt care or know what any of it was or wanted to try it until we showed up and talked about it. These kids were in 7th-8th grade.

The results seemed pretty interesting as our return visits more and more of them decided sex was something they wanted to try after our initial visits. Same with drug use.

I am for teaching kids the consequences of their actions but question whether teaching it at a younger and younger age is a true benefit.

I thought HSV was considered the kissing disease because many people got it passed to them via a kiss from somebody infect, but not showing symptoms. Then they got cold sores on their lips or within their mouth from it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Pics!

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Mononucleosis is the kissing virus . . . technically Epstein Barr (EBV). But the dirty little secret that doctors don't tell their patients . . . most people have herpes.

The herpes family is huge. It includes EBV (human herpes virus 4), CMV, cold sores (HSV1), genital herpes (HSV2), and of course herpes zoster . . . also called varicella . . . also called shingles . . . also called chicken friggin pox!

No matter which one you get . . . you got it for life.

Condoms are great . . . if you use them. It's certainly better than waiting for divine intervention.

If you wait until the 9th grade to start sex ed, it's all over except for the crying and valacyclovir.

Like I said, when in highschool I was on a comittee as a Senior going around to the local junior highs to speak to them about sex ed and drugs. The kids usually didnt care or know what any of it was or wanted to try it until we showed up and talked about it. These kids were in 7th-8th grade.

The results seemed pretty interesting as our return visits more and more of them decided sex was something they wanted to try after our initial visits. Same with drug use.

I am for teaching kids the consequences of their actions but question whether teaching it at a younger and younger age is a true benefit.

I thought HSV was considered the kissing disease because many people got it passed to them via a kiss from somebody infect, but not showing symptoms. Then they got cold sores on their lips or within their mouth from it.

I'd be more willing to be it was that they were more willing to talk about it once they got to know you.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
Keeping your legs closed would be a proper intervention.

Try again. HSV 1 and HSV 2 are transmissible via oral contact (kissing, for example).

You can also contract herpes by coming into contact with an item used by an infected person. Like a towel in a locker room, for example.

Amazingly, you can even contract herpes from toilet seats, though that's a low-probability scenario.

Once infected, a person can transmit the virus from one part of their body to another by carelessly touching an infected body part and then touching an uninfected part.

I realize that the hatred you experience for your own latent homosexuality is a constant source of anguish for you, but resisting the pull of sexual urges won't make you strong. It will just make you bitter.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Keeping your legs closed would be a proper intervention.

Try again. HSV 1 and HSV 2 are transmissible via oral contact (kissing, for example).

You can also contract herpes by coming into contact with an item used by an infected person. Like a towel in a locker room, for example.

Amazingly, you can even contract herpes from toilet seats, though that's a low-probability scenario.

Once infected, a person can transmit the virus from one part of their body to another by carelessly touching an infected body part and then touching an uninfected part.

I realize that the hatred you experience for your own latent homosexuality is a constant source of anguish for you, but resisting the pull of sexual urges won't make you strong. It will just make you bitter.

Was it really necessary to attack him personally over his comment?

 

[Jamie571]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Keeping your legs closed would be a proper intervention.

Try again. HSV 1 and HSV 2 are transmissible via oral contact (kissing, for example).

You can also contract herpes by coming into contact with an item used by an infected person. Like a towel in a locker room, for example.

Amazingly, you can even contract herpes from toilet seats, though that's a low-probability scenario.

Once infected, a person can transmit the virus from one part of their body to another by carelessly touching an infected body part and then touching an uninfected part.

I realize that the hatred you experience for your own latent homosexuality is a constant source of anguish for you, but resisting the pull of sexual urges won't make you strong. It will just make you bitter.

Damn... you seem like the bitter one

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Keeping your legs closed would be a proper intervention.

Try again. HSV 1 and HSV 2 are transmissible via oral contact (kissing, for example).

You can also contract herpes by coming into contact with an item used by an infected person. Like a towel in a locker room, for example.

Amazingly, you can even contract herpes from toilet seats, though that's a low-probability scenario.

Once infected, a person can transmit the virus from one part of their body to another by carelessly touching an infected body part and then touching an uninfected part.

I realize that the hatred you experience for your own latent homosexuality is a constant source of anguish for you, but resisting the pull of sexual urges won't make you strong. It will just make you bitter.

Whooof... Bitter?

At the very least you have to admit he's right... as unrealistic as it may be, abstinance certainly reduces the risk.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: zendari
Keeping your legs closed would be a proper intervention.

Sure,
staying at home is a great way to prevent car accidents too... In either case it's hardly a practical solution.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Mononucleosis is the kissing virus . . . technically Epstein Barr (EBV). But the dirty little secret that doctors don't tell their patients . . . most people have herpes.

The herpes family is huge. It includes EBV (human herpes virus 4), CMV, cold sores (HSV1), genital herpes (HSV2), and of course herpes zoster . . . also called varicella . . . also called shingles . . . also called chicken friggin pox!

No matter which one you get . . . you got it for life.

Condoms are great . . . if you use them. It's certainly better than waiting for divine intervention.

If you wait until the 9th grade to start sex ed, it's all over except for the crying and valacyclovir.

Like I said, when in highschool I was on a comittee as a Senior going around to the local junior highs to speak to them about sex ed and drugs. The kids usually didnt care or know what any of it was or wanted to try it until we showed up and talked about it. These kids were in 7th-8th grade.

The results seemed pretty interesting as our return visits more and more of them decided sex was something they wanted to try after our initial visits. Same with drug use.

I am for teaching kids the consequences of their actions but question whether teaching it at a younger and younger age is a true benefit.

I thought HSV was considered the kissing disease because many people got it passed to them via a kiss from somebody infect, but not showing symptoms. Then they got cold sores on their lips or within their mouth from it.

No offense . . . but peer education programs require A LOT of work to be successful. I'm not surprised you failed . . . nothing personal. Peer educators need training and supervision. Further, the program has to be well-planned, executed, and constantly reviewed for message delivery and effectiveness.

I don't care if you are the town pothead and porn king, even exceptional high school seniors know too little about sex (health) and drugs to be truly effective.

Good prevention/intervention programs are always tailored to the audience. About the only characteristic that never changes is the programs MUST facilitate dialogue. In essence, create a comfortable environment that facilitates inquiry . . . answer the questions kids already have. Yet still effectively communicate a proper health message.

You can teach a preschooler basic sex ed . . . it's hard to reach age 5 without having seen at least one winky and coochie that doesn't belong to you.

The elementary school kids get more info delivered in age appropriate manner.

Middle school has to begin addressing disease prevention b/c kids at this age are unfortunately having sex, sexual relations, etc. Same with the drug message . . . which should feature cigarettes and alcohol prominently since those are the TRUE gateway drugs . . . plus they kill far more Americans than the 'bad' drugs.

In Jr High the language may get a little more coarse . . . and you can certainly break out the pictures. (Don't worry about the link . . . you have to go one more link to get an eye full.) I had forgotten just how bad STDs look . . .

As with the Jr High kids, Sr High is an opportunity to have open, frank conversations about sex and drugs. The onus is on the 'teacher' to convey an accurate, honest, and reasoned argument as to why some activities are best delayed (sex until marriage or committed relationship), others should be deferred indefinitely (smoking, alcohol), while still others will bring NET misery under almost all circumstances (unprotected sex, multiple partners, cocaine, heroin).

And then you just pray kids don't ask the REALLY hard questions:
If sex is so bad, how come it's all over the TV?

If sex is so bad, how come it's all over the magazines?

Isn't your state (NC) highly dependent on tobacco? Or cigarette taxes (NY)? If it's so bad how come you don't just outlaw it?

If cigarettes and alcohol kill so many people how come they are legal but pot isn't?

What's so special about marriage? Don't most people wind up divorced?

So you are telling me I could marry someone, have a weekend of sex in the Motel 6, and get divorced on Monday . . . and that's morally superior to a random one-night stand?

Uh, did YOU wait until you were married?

 

[DrPizza]

uhhh, you do know that condoms do not effectively prevent the spread of herpes?...

edit before you burn me at the stake for that one...

Condoms are more effective than nothing, but they're definitely not 100% effective. In the case of the female shedding from the vaginal area, you mean to say that absolutely no fluids touch unprotected parts of the males genitalia? Last time I saw a condom, it didn't cover 100% of the area.

 

[DrPizza]

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of genital herpes and other STDs, but only when the infected areas are covered or protected by the condom. Herpes lesions may occur in areas that can be covered or protected by a condom, but they also may occur in areas that cannot be covered or protected by a condom.

here

Be advised: Condoms may not cover all sites of viral shedding, and they don't provide a 100% guarantee against herpes transmission. For example, herpes sores may be present on the scrotum or upper thigh, or virus may be shed into vaginal secretions that would reach places not covered. Even in heterosexual men or women, virus is shed in the area around the rectum (perirectal HSV). Thus, contact by touching or rubbing with this region of the penile skin or vulvar area may result in exposure to the virus. Even limited contact can result in exposure to high quantities of the virus. Reducing this exposure means putting on the condom during foreplay. Condoms are about 50% effective in reducing transmission between sexual partners. Condoms are the best all-around form of protection against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

here

 

[drifter106]

Like I said, when in highschool I was on a comittee as a Senior going around to the local junior highs to speak to them about sex ed and drugs. The kids usually didnt care or know what any of it was or wanted to try it until we showed up and talked about it. These kids were in 7th-8th grade.

The results seemed pretty interesting as our return visits more and more of them decided sex was something they wanted to try after our initial visits. Same with drug use.

I am for teaching kids the consequences of their actions but question whether teaching it at a younger and younger age is a true benefit.

I thought HSV was considered the kissing disease because many people got it passed to them via a kiss from somebody infect, but not showing symptoms. Then they got cold sores on their lips or within their mouth from it.

[/quote]

Ive been around 9 to 13 year olds over the past 25 years and its obvious that some of them are sexually active (moreso than back in the 70's). At some point in time there needs to be some intervention to create an awareness for these kids.

What concerns me is what will THEIR kids be like...the next generation. Values and morals...scary.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Keeping your legs closed would be a proper intervention.

Try again. HSV 1 and HSV 2 are transmissible via oral contact (kissing, for example).

You can also contract herpes by coming into contact with an item used by an infected person. Like a towel in a locker room, for example.

Amazingly, you can even contract herpes from toilet seats, though that's a low-probability scenario.

Once infected, a person can transmit the virus from one part of their body to another by carelessly touching an infected body part and then touching an uninfected part.

I realize that the hatred you experience for your own latent homosexuality is a constant source of anguish for you, but resisting the pull of sexual urges won't make you strong. It will just make you bitter.

Whooof... Bitter?

At the very least you have to admit he's right... as unrealistic as it may be, abstinance certainly reduces the risk.

I don't have any problem with programs that promote abstinence. But programs that ONLY promote abstinence, and leave out all information on human sexuality and safe-sex practices are outrageous.

As to my statements directed at Zendari: He spews nothing but vitriol. Homosexuality/gay marriage, abortion, problems with medicare, the morning-after pill, taxation, evolution. You name the "liberal" subject, and Zendari will slime you in venom.

Zendari doesn't debate points, he throws out ideological quips. If, for example, a supreme court decision happens to come out on the liberal side, Zendari will chime in and label it judical activism. Zendari NEVER provides an analysis of what about the reasoning process underlying the decision is activist. No, Zendari just throws out an extremist quip and ignores all reasoned responses.

And underlying almost everything Zendari spews, one gets the sense of seething spite. Why is that? Several months ago I proposed a hypothesis: Zendari is filled with self-hatred because he is gay and cannot accept that fact. I've repeated that on at least one other occasion. Zendari has never denied that hypothesis.

So I think that what we have here is someone desperately fighting against himself, and sublimating his self-rage by turning it against others.

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Pics!

LOL :laugh:

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira
And underlying almost everything Zendari spews, one gets the sense of seething spite. Why is that? Several months ago I proposed a hypothesis: Zendari is filled with self-hatred because he is gay and cannot accept that fact. I've repeated that on at least one other occasion. Zendari has never denied that hypothesis.

So I think that what we have here is someone desperately fighting against himself, and sublimating his self-rage by turning it against others.

Forgive me. I'll deny it now.

Not entirely right about your ranting though, I don't care much for the morning after pill anymore, unless the liberal culture of coercion forces stores to sell it.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: shira

_______ doesn't debate points, he throws out ideological quips. If, for example, a supreme court decision happens to come out on the ______ side, ______ will chime in and label it judical activism. ______ NEVER provides an analysis of what about the reasoning process underlying the decision is activist. No, ______ just throws out an extremist quip and ignores all reasoned responses.

And underlying almost everything ______ spews, one gets the sense of seething spite. Why is that?.

Wow - we can play mad-libs and fill in the names of a good 10-20% of the people that post here - both liberal and conservative.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

long-term monogamy here, ftw I'm like 7UP when it comes to condoms, never had it, never will!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: zendari
Keeping your legs closed would be a proper intervention.

Sure,
staying at home is a great way to prevent car accidents too... In either case it's hardly a practical solution.

Plenty of people in this country live without sexual activity. It's very practical if one makes the choice to.

Obviously when one gets into a car you run the risk of getting plowed by a truck; if you choose to engage in activities you should consider the risks involved.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: shira

_______ doesn't debate points, he throws out ideological quips. If, for example, a supreme court decision happens to come out on the ______ side, ______ will chime in and label it judical activism. ______ NEVER provides an analysis of what about the reasoning process underlying the decision is activist. No, ______ just throws out an extremist quip and ignores all reasoned responses.

And underlying almost everything ______ spews, one gets the sense of seething spite. Why is that?.

Wow - we can play mad-libs and fill in the names of a good 10-20% of the people that post here - both liberal and conservative.

I beg to differ, to the extent you're equating Zendari with any other individual poster. I can think of a handful of other posters who tend to be argumentative with nearly every post, but none of them so routinely post things as content-free as Zendari does. He really is one of the worst, and quite likely THE worst member of this board. I urge everyone here to decline to respond to him, since he's obviously not interested in any real-world discussion.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
uhhh, you do know that condoms do not effectively prevent the spread of herpes?...

edit before you burn me at the stake for that one...

Condoms are more effective than nothing, but they're definitely not 100% effective. In the case of the female shedding from the vaginal area, you mean to say that absolutely no fluids touch unprotected parts of the males genitalia? Last time I saw a condom, it didn't cover 100% of the area.

You need to stop buying that Japanese brand.

You will get no argument from me about abstinence being the most effective means of preventing the transmission of STDs. But I'm keeping it real . . . not everybody is Condi Rice or Hilary Clinton.

Not to get too technical but efficacy and effectiveness mean very specific things in healthcare. Efficacy is how well an intervention works if its used perfectly. Effectiveness is how well an intervention works in typical use. Naturally, effectiveness is always lower than efficacy.

Let me provide a little perspective on 'effectiveness.' Less than 1/4 of all people with high blood pressure are effectively treated with one medication. Less than 1/2 are effectively treated with two. In the most comprehensive study to date STAR*D for depression, less than 1/3 of people recovered after being treated with one SSRI (fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline). In the most comprehensive study to date CATIE for schizophrenia, an average of 75% stop taking their medication because it didn't work or caused intolerable side effects. Condoms for herpes is starting to look pretty good, eh?

To my knowledge, there isn't a single STD that's more effectively transmitted from female2male during unprotected vaginal intercourse. Although shedding viral particles can indeed occur outside of a condom, there is a low risk of transmission through the condom. The take home is that women and men (boys and girls) should insist upon condom use to REDUCE the risk of STDs. But take note that condoms provide far more protection for some diseases (HIV, HepC) than others (HPV, herpes).