# An Interesting Study



## MJS (Mar 12, 2008)

Came across this article on the web today.



> CHICAGO - Startling government research on teenage girls and sexually transmitted diseases sends a blunt message to kids who think theyre immune: Its liable to happen to you or someone you know.
> In the first study of its kind, researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found at least one in 4 teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease.


 
Thoughts?


----------



## punisher73 (Mar 12, 2008)

That's just disturbing.  I can't remember the statistic, but I know females are more prone to getting an STD due to our biological differences.  

But, I never would have thought it was that high.


----------



## tellner (Mar 12, 2008)

The Fundamentalist bastards who took over the White House deserve to burn in the deepest pits of the Christian hell for all eternity. And yes, I'm absolutely serious about this. If they were put on trial and sentenced for their crimes I'd be happy to pull the rope or swing the axe myself.

The Bushies have completely eliminated comprehensive sex education in any public school. It's not permitted. You can't talk about the effectiveness of birth control measures. You can't even legally discuss the fact that condoms severely reduce the spread of sexually transmitted disease. "Ignorance is strength" indeed. 

The worst part, though is the disgraceful murderous hatred that motivated them to condemn thousands of women to agonizing, degrading protracted death as their diseased reproductive organs kill them. Those unspeakable sadistic bastards sat on Gardasil for half a dozen years. Gardasil provides excellent protection against HPV. It underwent the most rigorous safety and effectiveness testing. The manufacturers jumped through all the FDA hoops. But the Smirking Chimp and his chorus of Cotton Mathers sat on it for years and wouldn't let it get final approval.

HPV is responsible for a little over 70% of cervical cancer. At a conservative estimate that means that about 8000 diagnoses and 2500 fatalities a year could be prevented by making the vaccine widely available. Six years? That's over 40000 victims and 15000 women condemned to one of the most horrible deaths I've ever personally seen.

Why? According to the Administration's own spokesdrones they didn't want to see Gardasil legalized because it would "give permission" to unmarried women to have sex. They repeated this execrable screed quite a few times. Condoms do not effectively prevent the spread of HPV. Gardasil would allow women to have sex without worrying about that particular infection. If women aren't terrified that their own wombs will kill them, why, they might have sex that wasn't authorized by the Church. 

So the unspeakable creatures in the White House witheld a lifesaving drug in the hopes that women would be frightened into chastity.

Shooting's too good for those smug oleaginous villains. Every single one of them deserves the same horrible lingering death they condemned thousands of women to.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 12, 2008)

Earlier in 2007 there was a "study" saying that teen sex was at a signifigant low and condom use at an all time high, pregnancy was down etc. now its this "study". I think there was some creative numbercrunching to reach over 25%. The constant barrage of contradicting studies has me skeptical of the entire lot.


----------



## navyvetcv60 (Mar 12, 2008)

This is really sad, and is more evidence at how our society is in major decline. This is a byproduct of single parent house holds, there is so many moms raising children with no father. 
With regards to an earlier assertion of "lack of sex ed. in public schools, the Government run schools are full of "How to live a deviant life style and be safe doing it, ever heard of the cucumber races? This is where they take your children and show them how to put a condom on a cucumber.
I really don't know where to start? If you love your children and want them to suceed and live a moral life GET THEM OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT RUN SCHOOLS.
The public schools is absolutly the biggest failure of our Government!


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2008)

Yes, by all means, blame the Bush Administration for not taking money from people who don't agree with the focus of current sex ed curricula; not giving that money to an institution that many people believe is not the correct venue for that education; and basically for not protecting kids from the effects of behavior that so many of us don't want them engaging in.  _Shame on them_.

Cue the "Teens have sex - deal with it" arguments.  Well, STDs happen - deal with it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Well, STDs happen - deal with it.



Yeah, they do.  Wouldn't it be nice to reduce the incidence?


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Well, STDs happen - deal with it.


 
as does Polio - deal with it.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 12, 2008)

tellner said:


> So the unspeakable creatures in the White House witheld a lifesaving drug in the hopes that women would be frightened into chastity.



01-20-09

313 days
22 hours
37 minutes
05 seconds

That is, provided there still IS a US, as we know it, then.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Yes, by all means, blame the Bush Administration for not taking money from people who don't agree with the focus of current sex ed curricula; not giving that money to an institution that many people believe is not the correct venue for that education; and basically for not protecting kids from the effects of behavior that so many of us don't want them engaging in.  _Shame on them_.
> 
> Cue the "Teens have sex - deal with it" arguments.  Well, STDs happen - deal with it.


Well, dang it. The day has come. We must disagree.

Teens DO have sex and STDs DO happen and we must deal with them both. Gosh ... what in the world could we do about such an awful situation? Hm. I wonder.

Well there are these incredible barrier methods that if we just can't seem to thwart teen sex that they could and should use.  Problem is they're too darned embarrassed to buy them publicly, too darned embarrassed to ask for some from their parents and too darned busy to go to the free clinic.  WhatEVer CAN we DO?

Hm.  Well here's an idea ... we could make barrier contraception available freely to them on a confidential basis.  Perhaps we can get those kids who just refuse to listen to their parents, teachers and politicians (I know - there's only a dozen of these kids in the world) to at least protect themselves and each other.

What's that?  All the money filtered into social programs, medicare, welfare, state medical assistance programs and the ramifications of continued, exponentially growing social diseases are WORTH face-egging, sick and unwanted babies, increasing need for governmenet-funded programs to pay for kids with herpes, AIDS, genital warts, chlamydia, gonorrhea and all the other diseases?  The pain, suffering and cost everyone goes through because of all this ... it's all ... WORTH IT??  You mean ... THE COST OF BARRIER CONTRACEPTION, HAVING UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE OF CHURCH AND THE DINING ROOM TABLE, AND EXPOSING CHILDREN TO MEDICAL FACTS ABOUT THEIR CURRENT AND FUTURE HEALTH IS MORE THAN THE COST OF PERMANENT DISFIGUREMENT, TERMINAL ILLESSES, STERILIZATION AND SOCIAL OSTRACISM?????

OH!

Okay.

Well then.

I guess I'll just shut up.

:shrug:


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> as does Polio - deal with it.


 
Interesting comparison.  What sort of behavior tends to result in polio?  Is it behavior that a portion of the community frowns upon?  Is it behavior that the victims are being told they can go ahead and engage in, as long as they are "careful"?  

The difference is that with STDs:  1) I didn't want you to do that;  2)  You did it anyway;  3)  You want me to pay to protect you from the effects;  4)  I don't think so.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 12, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Well, dang it. The day has come. We must disagree.
> 
> Teens DO have sex and STDs DO happen and we must deal with them both. Gosh ... what in the world could we do about such an awful situation? Hm. I wonder.
> 
> ...


Nicely stated... and _please_, as one of those teachers who's not listened to, continue to make such statements to all and sundry!


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> The difference is that with STDs:  1) I didn't want you to do that;  2)  You did it anyway;  3)  You want me to pay to protect you from the effects;  4)  I don't think so.



5) Punish the whores!


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Well, dang it. The day has come. We must disagree.


 
It's happened before, and my ears are still ringing from it. 



shesulsa said:


> Teens DO have sex and STDs DO happen and we must deal with them both. Gosh ... what in the world could we do about such an awful situation? Hm. I wonder.


 
What could WE do?  No, what could THEY do? 



shesulsa said:


> Well there are these incredible barrier methods that if we just can't seem to thwart teen sex that they could and should use. Problem is they're too darned embarrassed to buy them publicly, too darned embarrassed to ask for some from their parents and too darned busy to go to the free clinic. WhatEVer CAN we DO?


 
It's a matter of economics... what are ya feeling most, boy?  Embarrassed or horny? 



shesulsa said:


> Hm. Well here's an idea ... we could make barrier contraception available freely to them on a confidential basis.


 
Freely - to them.  Paid for by others.  Including those who want no part of it and were not asked.  



shesulsa said:


> Perhaps we can get those kids *who just refuse to listen to their parents, teachers and politicians *to at least protect themselves and each other.


 
Now why would we want to protect those kids?



shesulsa said:


> What's that? All the money filtered into social programs, medicare, welfare, state medical assistance programs and the ramifications of continued, exponentially growing social diseases are WORTH face-egging, sick and unwanted babies, increasing need for governmenet-funded programs to pay for kids with herpes, AIDS, genital warts, chlamydia, gonorrhea and all the other diseases? The pain, suffering and cost everyone goes through because of all this ... it's all ... WORTH IT?? You mean ... THE COST OF BARRIER CONTRACEPTION, HAVING UNCOMFORTABLE CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE OF CHURCH AND THE DINING ROOM TABLE, AND EXPOSING CHILDREN TO MEDICAL FACTS ABOUT THEIR CURRENT AND FUTURE HEALTH IS MORE THAN THE COST OF PERMANENT DISFIGUREMENT, TERMINAL ILLESSES, STERILIZATION AND SOCIAL OSTRACISM?????


 
But... you've argued above that the cost of permanent disfigurement, terminal illnesses, sterilization, and social ostracism, along with the other things you've mentioned, are not worth the cost of the embarrassment of purchasing the means of prevention, even to those who will bear the cost.  And because they refuse to bear that cost, you want others to bear it for them.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> 5) Punish the whores!


 
Are you really this ignorant?  Not "Punish the whores."  It's "Take the responsibility for your own actions."  Do you really not see the difference?


----------



## tellner (Mar 12, 2008)

Just to underline what SS said...

People have always had sex. They've even done it when *gasp* the Authorities didn't want them to. 

What's significant here is that the Bush Administration isn't just willing to let people die. They're eager. And they've stated that the reason they did it was to make sure that women who don't behave the way they want will have to live in fear of a really horrible death. That's not just a "deal with it". That's mass murder. It's not even a matter of insanity. It's a sadistic determination to ensure that there's only one choice - comply or die.

It's even worse. Using the power of the purse and the Law they've mandated ignorance. You can't even learn the facts and make an informed choice. You have to take blind stabs in the dark because the Official Party Line is that you can not be trusted to know the truth. Ignorance is moral strength. Mental slavery is your only freedom. Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

There's no polite way to say this, Cory. Your flippant "Bugger you Jack, I'm alright" attitude displays a truly appalling ignorance of the reality or a pathological lack of even the barest human compassion. I try to be fair, so I'll assume the former.

If you have the stones I recommend that you become the caregiver of someone dying of cervical cancer or AIDS. I've done it. It's a terrible thing to witness, worse to go through, and inhuman to wish on another person just because they don't have the same Invisible Friend that you do. You'll come out of it by one of four doors. You'll bolt. You'll dissociate. You'll hurt and probably take up an unhealthy crutch. Or you'll realize that life is too damned short for cruelty and needless suffering and grow a little bit of compassion and love for your fellow human being.


----------



## crushing (Mar 12, 2008)

Actually, Gardasil was approved by the FDA years ago.  The big debate has been whether or not the vaccine should be made mandatory.

Then again, had Gardasil been fast-tracked for approval and potentially dangerous side-effects eventually made evident, then the regime in power, in this case 'Smirking Chimp' (hopefully using such a silly moniker for the President enhances my statements, ) would have been a negligent partner in bed with big pharma execs at the expense of the health of innocent girls.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2008)

tellner said:


> There's no polite way to say this, Cory. Your flippant "Bugger you Jack, I'm alright" attitude displays a truly appalling ignorance of the reality or a pathological lack of even the barest human compassion. I try to be fair, so I'll assume the former.
> 
> If you have the stones I recommend that you become the caregiver of someone dying of cervical cancer or AIDS. I've done it. It's a terrible thing to witness, worse to go through, and inhuman to wish on another person just because they don't have the same Invisible Friend that you do. You'll come out of it by one of four doors. You'll bolt. You'll dissociate. You'll hurt and probably take up an unhealthy crutch. Or you'll realize that life is too damned short for cruelty and needless suffering and grow a little bit of compassion and love for your fellow human being.


 
And if there was a polite way to say it, Todd, I have no doubt, based on your posting history, that you would fail to employ it.  I'll spare the rhetorical flourishes that you are so fond of and simply say that you have made a number of assumptions that are incorrect.  That I don't come to the same conclusions that you do does not make me immoral - that is the viewpoint of the religious fundamentalist.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> It's happened before, and my ears are still ringing from it.


:lol2: :asian:


> What could WE do?  No, what could THEY do?


What could they do? Hate to sound like Mr. Clinton, but ... define 'could.'  Could in theory? Could logically? Could spiritually? Could reasonably? Could within the confines of their hormonally-charged, fairly irrational teenage brain?


> It's a matter of economics... what are ya feeling most, boy?  Embarrassed or horny?


My money's on a near-fatal and equitable combination of both.



> Freely - to them.  Paid for by others.  Including those who want no part of it and were not asked.


Wah. Boo hoo.  Own a home? Don't have kids? Withdraw your payment of property taxes because they help pay for the libraries, parks, schools and other free educational programs other people's kids use.  *Notes calendar for youngest child's 18th birthday.*


> Now why would we want to protect those kids?


 Because it makes sense, because our social assistance programs are strained enough, because the medical field is strained enough, because there are far too many sick unwanted babies, BECAUSE ONE IN FOUR TEENAGE GIRLS GET AN STD.  Could be yours.




> But... you've argued above that the cost of permanent disfigurement, terminal illnesses, sterilization, and social ostracism, along with the other things you've mentioned, are not worth the cost of the embarrassment of purchasing the means of prevention, even to those who will bear the cost.  And because they refuse to bear that cost, you want others to bear it for them.



Huh??  I did not argue that.  Perhaps you misread my sarcasm? My point was that the teenage brain will NOT be processing the long-term risks while doused with hormones and lacking the oxygenated blood supply.

I guess if you're worried about cost you need to look beyond the pocketbook, though I still think it's a great place to start:



> ATLANTA - An American diagnosed with the AIDS virus can expect to live for about 24 years on average, and the cost of health care over those two-plus decades is more than $600,000, new research indicates.Both life expectancy and the cost of care have risen from earlier estimates, mainly because of expensive and effective drug therapies, said Bruce Schackman, the study&#8217;s lead author.


Source

Let's assume that study is close to correct and use the numbers for the sake of argument.

A box of 20 Lifestyles condoms not on sale at our local store costs about $12.

Let's assume you use all 20 condoms in one week.  That's $12 per week, $624 per year and $14976 for 24 years.  That's in Oregon though, so no sales tax.  Add an 8% sales tax to those numbers and it goes up to $12.96 per week, $673.92 per year and $16174.08 over 24 years.

$600,000 ... $16,200.

I haven't found the study abstract yet, but I'm fairly certain that $600k number is inclusive of medical care and medication only - I doubt that this number includes paperwork processing costs, government worker pensions, occasional hospitalizations, lack of employment nor comfort items required such as diapers, chucks pads, special balms for the skin, etcetera.

But to be fair, the $16k number doesn't cover gasoline, pedal power, alternative fuel costs nor the cost of the vehicle it took to get there - let's give the subject a cash-purchased Ford Explorer with a full tank and put the Walmart at 5 miles away. That'll bump his/her cost to a whole $56270. And if the subject purchases the Female Condom, the cost goes up quite a bit more - might even bring it up to $80k but let's give it extra cushion and bring it up to an even $100k.

$600k.  $100k.


Numbers *could* measure the cost of infertility counseling and treatment, in vitro fertilization, adoption costs.

But numbers can't measure heartbreak, stress and strain, depression and anxiety secondary to this.  

I don't think teaching abstinence only is the sole answer, I don't think teaching sex as a health topic and providing barrier contraception is the only answer.

I think we need to do BOTH.

There is JUST NO QUESTION that sex is a health issue and should be taught as such.

There is also NO QUESTION that it is a health issue which involves behaviors which means it has moral and spiritual implications and social repercussions.

Hence, it is INCUMBENT upon us to treat it - AND TEACH IT - as BOTH.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Are you really this ignorant?  Not "Punish the whores."  It's "Take the responsibility for your own actions."  Do you really not see the difference?



Considering that you don't want to protect children who "don't listen"?  Considering that you make a moral distinction between diseases?

Yeah, pretty much.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 12, 2008)

crushing said:


> Actually, Gardasil was approved by the FDA years ago. The big debate has been whether or not the vaccine should be made mandatory.
> 
> Then again, had Gardasil been fast-tracked for approval and potentially dangerous side-effects eventually made evident, then the regime in power, in this case 'Smirking Chimp' (hopefully using such a silly moniker for the President enhances my statements, ) would have been a negligent partner in bed with big pharma execs at the expense of the health of innocent girls.


This is the bottom of the issue, regarding the Federal Government - a convenient target to blame for any and all ills.



shesulsa said:


> $600k. $100k......Numbers *could* measure the cost of infertility counseling and treatment, in vitro fertilization, adoption costs......But numbers can't measure heartbreak, stress and strain, depression and anxiety secondary to this.


But please don't lose sight of the fact that condoms are not 100% effective (even for the prevention of pregnancy, let alone STD's).  If the success rate of condoms is 95%, that still leaves you a 2/3 chance that in twenty years you will end up paying your $100,000, and still die from the $600,000 killer later on down the road.



shesulsa said:


> I don't think teaching abstinence only is the sole answer, I don't think teaching sex as a health topic and providing barrier contraception is the only answer.
> 
> I think we need to do BOTH.
> 
> ...


And with this, I am in total agreement.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> But please don't lose sight of the fact that condoms are not 100% effective (even for the prevention of pregnancy, let alone STD's).



That's a pretty silly argument.  If chances of death in a car accident without wearing a seatbelt are 70% and the chances with are 10%, who would argue against using seatbelts because they are not infallible?

The only reason all of this is even an issue is because it involves sex, the great bugaboo of the American mind.  With similar choices to be made in less fraught areas of life, there is rarely any argument.


----------



## crushing (Mar 12, 2008)

If you'll allow me this little tangent, strike it from existence if necessary. . .

Anyone woman that admits Gene Simmons is her baby daddy should be familiar with STDs!!!!   

Ok, away from the tongue-in-cheek and back to the serious discussion. . .


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Considering that you don't want to protect children who "don't listen"? Considering that you make a moral distinction between diseases?
> 
> Yeah, pretty much.


 
Dude, it doesn't even have to BE a moral distinction.  Despite what Tellner said, I don't even have an "Invisible Friend".  You don't need one to recognize that certain behavior has risks.  What I'm saying is that if you know there are risks and you choose to do it anyway, you own the risks.  That's it.  I'm not calling anyone a whore.  I'm not making a moral judgement at all.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Dude, it doesn't even have to BE a moral distinction.  Despite what Tellner said, I don't even have an "Invisible Friend".  You don't need one to recognize that certain behavior has risks.  What I'm saying is that if you know there are risks and you choose to do it anyway, you own the risks.  That's it.  I'm not calling anyone a whore.  I'm not making a moral judgement at all.


Of course not, but what you ARE doing is expecting teenagers to behave with the sensibility, logic and responsibility that adults contain - oh hell, even some adults don't have them!


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 12, 2008)

crushing said:


> If you'll allow me this little tangent, strike it from existence if necessary. . .
> 
> Anyone woman that admits Gene Simmons is her baby daddy should be familiar with STDs!!!!
> 
> Ok, away from the tongue-in-cheek and back to the serious discussion. . .


I'm going to assume you realize that it's a joke and just politely thank you for the brief break in conversation.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Of course not, but what you ARE doing is expecting teenagers to behave with the sensibility, logic and responsibility that adults contain - oh hell, even some adults don't have them!


 
I know, crazy right?  There's always just enough of them walking around making smart decisions that it makes you forget about all the other ones.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Interesting comparison. What sort of behavior tends to result in polio? Is it behavior that a portion of the community frowns upon? Is it behavior that the victims are being told they can go ahead and engage in, as long as they are "careful"?
> 
> The difference is that with STDs: 1) I didn't want you to do that; 2) You did it anyway; 3) You want me to pay to protect you from the effects; 4) I don't think so.


 
doesn't matter.  they are both diseases that are largly avoidable.  Using disease as a way to try and scare teenagers who are in an irresponsible period in their lives in an attempt to control their behavior is really a stupid idea.

1) and 2) doesn't matter what you want a teenager to do, they will find a way to do what THEY want to do.  

3)  no, I wouldn't ask you to pay for it so don't worry.

4)  well, if you THINK you can exercise this level of control over your own children, so be it.  Don't be surprised when you are disappointed...


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 12, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> 3) no, I wouldn't ask you to pay for it so don't worry.


 
So, who's supplying those "free" condoms?


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> I'm not making a moral judgement at all.



You made a comparison between polio and STD's, with the inference that polio sufferers didn't do anything and thus deserve help, while STD sufferers did, and thus do not deserve help.  That is a moral judgment.

Would that same denial extend to someone who had accidentally cut themselves?  Or got in a car accident which was their fault?  Somehow I don't think so.

Also, as others have pointed out, you're going on a pretty harsh personal responsibility bent for a bunch of _kids_.  For non-sexual behaviors, most adults have decided that kids don't have the full range of maturity and responsibility and thus deserve help and guidance.  Even when they screw up.  Even when they don't listen.

It makes it rather hard to believe anything other than the fact that this is all about the sex, not the responsibility.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> I know, crazy right?  There's always just enough of them walking around making smart decisions that it makes you forget about all the other ones.


:erg:  *looks around* Uh ... exactly *where* do you live? Cuz ... I think I wanna move ....



Flying Crane said:


> 4)  well, if you THINK you can exercise this level of control over your own children, so be it.  Don't be surprised when you are disappointed...


:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 12, 2008)

There are a couple of sentiments in which I entirely agree when it comes to conversation and some that I would dispute.

First of all, I agree that sex education is HIGHLY neglected as a topic in our schools.  Students should be given the choice to take a comprehensive, fully informative, and partially practical class on this matter.  

Choice is one area that I would like to emphasize, however.  No body should be forced to learn something that goes against their religion/morality/ethics.  The moment we take steps down that path, then anything goes.  Break out the telescreens.

Second of all, condoms should be easier for students to obtain.  Making them available for purchase inside of schools makes sense to me.  It also solves the problem of forcing people to pay for that which they do not agree...a problem in which I greatly emphasize.  I would gladly with hold the $0.50 dollar of every tax dollar I pay because it funds the military industrial complex.  I know what some of you are saying, "Bombs vs Condoms?"  WTF!  Well they're both penis shaped.

Moving on.

Thirdly, while I agree with Tellner's polemic regarding the administrations policy regarding Gardasil, I would like to point out that forcing children to be vaccinated is not a good solution.  Especially when the vaccine may not work and may, in fact, be dangerous.  Do we really know that HPV causes cancer?

We need to be very careful regarding decisions we make for other people because we think they are best.  This is part of the reason we've ended up in the predicament in which we currently find ourselves.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> So, who's supplying those "free" condoms?


 

I dunno man, I don't have all the details for all the answers.  But I do know that there are products and methods that can negate a huge portion of the risk that can be connected to sexual activity.  Teenagers, who as a population are often mentally and emotionally irrational, many of whom WILL have sex whether adults approve or not, ought to benefit from these products and methods.  Withholding these products and methods out of a desire to scare teenagers into behavior that you approve of, is already a lost battle.

If you have children of your own, or nephews and nieces, or younger cousins, or friends with children, you decide how much it's worth to you.


----------



## newGuy12 (Mar 12, 2008)

I keep asking myself what *I* would do if I were to live out my misspent youth again, but in this culture that we have today.

Probably be doing as much as I could to spread the STDs for sure.  I say break out the condoms for all -- go ahead and contract the manufacturers for another lot shipment.

Treatment of disease is no joke, no matter what kind of behaviour causes it.  You want to throw everything at your disposal at the problem.

Again, someone (I have no preference who) should counsel the young people -- "Don't have sex", but also say, "If you disregard my advice, just make sure that you use the condom."

Likewise -- you say, "Do not drink alchohol."  But by all means, if you disregard this -- "Do not drive".

Who among us would think -- OH, I will only punch now.  No kicking, no kneeing, only punches.  No open hand strikes or elbows.  Only punches.  Such a person would be crazy.  Why should we struggle with social ills with a similiar self-imposed limitation?  That makes no sense to me.


----------



## Nomad (Mar 12, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Interesting comparison. What sort of behavior tends to result in polio? Is it behavior that a portion of the community frowns upon? Is it behavior that the victims are being told they can go ahead and engage in, as long as they are "careful"?
> 
> The difference is that with STDs: 1) I didn't want you to do that; 2) You did it anyway; 3) You want me to pay to protect you from the effects; 4) I don't think so.


 

Okaaaaay.... from this statement, I can assume that you are either 1) a virgin or 2) that you and your spouse were both virgins on your wedding day and will be faithful to each other until you both are dead.  And 3) that you either have no children or are 100% certain they will also follow 1) or 2).

Congratulations.  Oh, on the offchance that some these conditions are technically not true, then at some point you also were/are/will be spinning the chamber in the STD six-shooter.   Good luck!

The *cost* of the Gardasil vaccine is so much lower than the cost of treating those preventable cases of cervical cancer that it really is a no-brainer for society... and that doesn't even factor in the massive physical and emotional pain of the person and her family in the latter cases.


----------



## Ninjamom (Mar 12, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> That's a pretty silly argument. If chances of death in a car accident without wearing a seatbelt are 70% and the chances with are 10%, who would argue against using seatbelts because they are not infallible?
> 
> The only reason all of this is even an issue is because it involves sex, the great bugaboo of the American mind. With similar choices to be made in less fraught areas of life, there is rarely any argument.


You've set up a straw-man for the argument - no one is arguing "Don't use condoms because they're not 100% effective".  My argument is, "Don't assume teens are 100% safe if they use them".

That would be as daft as diving your Piper Cub straight into the dirt since you're protected because, after all, you're wearing your seatbelt.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Mar 12, 2008)

No thanks I do not want the schools explaining to my two daughters what an excitable form of birth control is.
I think that is my job. If you do not want to explain this to your children dont have kids..
And if i don't well i know this is kinda never heard any more but here goes.....
IT'S MY FAULT!!!!
The schools are not a baby sitting service.


----------



## Kacey (Mar 12, 2008)

jetboatdeath said:


> No thanks I do not want the schools explaining to my two daughters what an excitable form of birth control is.
> I think that is my job. If you do not want to explain this to your children dont have kids..
> And if i don't well i know this is kinda never heard any more but here goes.....
> IT'S MY FAULT!!!!
> The schools are not a baby sitting service.



The difference is, _you_ are a responsible parent.  I have far too many students whose parents are _not_ responsible parents, as evident by the 4 pregnant 8th graders at my school, and the 12 year-old son of a 25 year-old mother in my class.  No one at home is teaching these kids about birth control, or they wouldn't be in the situations they're in - and while I agree that it's not the school's job, who _will_, if the schools don't?

As far as the condom discussion goes - _nothing_ is 100%, but the 97% success rate of condoms (both as birth control and as a preventative for STDs) is a damn sight better than the success rate of _not_ using a condom... that such usage is also cheaper is simply a nice addition.


----------



## MJS (Mar 13, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> So, who's supplying those "free" condoms?


 
I could think of a number of places.


----------



## MJS (Mar 13, 2008)

Well, it should be no surprise to anyone that a) kids are going to have sex and b) if they're not educated properly, the chance of an STD is going to be higher, compared to if they did have proper education.

If people think that stuff like this doesnt happen, they're kidding themselves.  Schools do their part, but its also up to the parents of these kids to educate them.  Keeping it away from them, means theres a good chance that out of curiosity, they're going to what to see what the big 'secret' is.  

Personally, I'd rather educate my child, and if need be, give them condoms, the pill, etc., so if they should be sexually active, at least they're going to be safe.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 13, 2008)

How about teaching students of a certain age that having sex is okay?  Here's how to do it in an emotionally responsible and safe way?


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 13, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> How about teaching students of a certain age that having sex is okay?  Here's how to do it in an emotionally responsible and safe way?



Damn upnorth, you trying to start a riot?


----------



## tellner (Mar 13, 2008)

Whoopi Goldberg said it best:

"You can't stop kids from ****ing. It feels good."

There it is. 

That's the reality. 

You can make it punishable by death like in Saudi or Iran. You can try and threaten them with a horrible death by cancer twenty years down the line. You can throw them in jail. They will still have sex. So you can keep going for shriller and crueler to satisfy your Big Invisible Friend and keep control of those icky, nasty, slutty _*female*_ bodies. 

Or you can say "This is the way things are. What is the most effective and compassionate way to help them through a difficult period in their lives? How can we help them make rational decisions and keep the toxic fallout to a minimum?"

One way appeals to fear, hatred, total control and the blind worship of unreason. The other tries to take a mature view of a difficult subject and figure out how best to live in an imperfect world.

I know which one I'd choose. But then, I think the Enlightenment was a good thing, maybe the best thing to happen to the species in the past couple thousand years. And real human beings and their fragile lives and happiness are more precious than dogma and the near-sexual pleasures of righteous wrath.


----------

