STDs still on the rise, report says

Status
Not open for further replies.
SFShawn13 said:
Because the bush administration has poured millions into abstinence only programs. Part of those programs is not teaching teens how to use protection or where to get it.
Click to expand...

why am i not surprised? :roll:
 
Hear Again said:
why am i not surprised? :roll:
Click to expand...

lol, jaja, it is scary!

I LOVED my college human sexuality class. We covered the emotions that come with sex, birth control, abortion, abstinence, same-sex sex, relationships, STDs, and more. It was great!
 
SFShawn13 said:
lol, jaja, it is scary!

I LOVED my college human sexuality class. We covered the emotions that come with sex, birth control, abortion, abstinence, same-sex sex, relationships, STDs, and more. It was great!
Click to expand...

we discussed those topics in my high school health class as well. perhaps that's part of the reason why i didn't end up as a pregnant teen. :lol:
 
Reba said:
Are you saying that promiscuous sex doesn't spread sexually transmitted disease? Then why are they called "sexually transmitted" diseases? If the sexual activity wasn't happening, there wouldn't be any transmitting.
Click to expand...

Don't you think that this statement is a little ignorant?

I do.

Without sex, we wouldn't be here.

And nature doesn't care if you have sex before marriage. Marriage is an outdated religious institution that doesn't adhere to any laws of nature.
 
Reba said:
Another reason for people to quit screwing around.
Click to expand...

Nah, they dont need to. just that they need to take care of themselve and make sure they are clean so they wouldn't give others and the follow up with doctors more. If the couple are all clean then why not! Some of them aren't up for marriage so they dont need to wait and go ahead screwing around. =X
 
I can see that the people get too little information about proper sex education but just abstinence only that's how lead sex diease.

I remember circumcision debate thread, some ADers get little information about sex diease when they claimed that the doctors told them that circumcision is best advantage for protect against AID, STD, etc.... over uncircumcision. I was total speechless over their comments because it's a misleading... I tried to convince them that AID, STD, HIV, etc has nothing do with circumcision and uncircumcision and then remind them with link that high circumcision male in Africa had AID, STD, HIV, etc. and also link of worldwide AID.... is UNPROTECT SEX, blood transfion, needle, etc.
 
Last edited:
SFShawn13 said:
Nope. All it takes is once. UNPROTECTED sex spreads STDs, not promiscuity.
Click to expand...
Sex outside of marriage, even once, is promiscuous and risky. No protection is foolproof.
 
BradB08 said:
Without sex, we wouldn't be here.

And nature doesn't care if you have sex before marriage. Marriage is an outdated religious institution that doesn't adhere to any laws of nature.
Click to expand...
"Nature" isn't a being that can care, nor is is an instittution that can create laws.

We would still have plenty enough people if only married women became pregnant.

Btw, marriage is not just for the religious. Atheist people get married, and atheist countries promote it. They have civil ceremonies.
 
Reba said:
Are you saying that promiscuous sex doesn't spread sexually transmitted disease? Then why are they called "sexually transmitted" diseases? If the sexual activity wasn't happening, there wouldn't be any transmitting.
Click to expand...

That is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that people have always engaged in promiscious sex, and will always do so. This abstinence only attitude is the reason that people, in particlular, teens and young adults, are not using protection. There has already been research done that shows that kids who get abstinence only education and those that take virginity pledges have sex at the same age and at the same rate as those who receive a more comprehensive education that includes information about accessability to protection from pregnancy and STDs. The only difference is that those receiving abstinence only ed are MORE LIKELY NOT TO USE PROTECTION. In short, support abstinence only, and you also support a rise in STDs and teen aged pregnancies, along with all of the social problems that come with the two. That is what I am saying.
 
Frisky Feline said:
Nah, they dont need to. just that they need to take care of themselve and make sure they are clean so they wouldn't give others and the follow up with doctors more. If the couple are all clean then why not! Some of them aren't up for marriage so they dont need to wait and go ahead screwing around. =X
Click to expand...
People can't always tell if they are "clean" or disease free. Symptom free doesn't always mean disease free.
 
SFShawn13 said:
Because the bush administration has poured millions into abstinence only programs. Part of those programs is not teaching teens how to use protection or where to get it.
Click to expand...

1.5 billion, as a matter of fact.:shock:
 
Reba said:
"Nature" isn't a being that can care, nor is is an instittution that can create laws.

We would still have plenty enough people if only married women became pregnant.
Click to expand...

Do you consider children born out of wedlock to be "bastard children"? I have known people who expressed an opinion similar to yours and they consider children out of wedlock to be bastard children.
 
The reason STD rates are rising are not because of George Bush, or public schools. It's because irresponsible people like all of you have kids and don't take responsibility of their own children. Their life, their education, and their health is the parents' responsibility. It just burns me up when people try to blame all of their own personal, or our county as a whole's problems on the government. That's why our country is in the mess it's in right now anyway, not because of the President. We don't live in a Communist society, we have control over our own lives. People just don't have any accountability! If your kid is coming down with STD's you should be looking to your own parenting. That being said, kids always have and always will screw around....... STOP BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE FOR YOUR PROBLEMS!
 
disappointed said:
The reason STD rates are rising are not because of George Bush, or public schools. It's because irresponsible people like all of you have kids and don't take responsibility of their own children. Their life, their education, and their health is the parents' responsibility. It just burns me up when people try to blame all of their own personal, or our county as a whole's problems on the government. That's why our country is in the mess it's in right now anyway, not because of the President. We don't live in a Communist society, we have control over our own lives. People just don't have any accountability! If your kid is coming down with STD's you should be looking to your own parenting. That being said, kids always have and always will screw around....... STOP BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE FOR YOUR PROBLEMS!
Click to expand...

No one said that the reason the STD rates are rising is because of George Bush or public schools. They are rising because of the change to abstinence only education, something that the public schools teach, and George Bush put 1.5 billion dollars into. Parents do not always have accurate information to provide their children. Better it is done by someone who does, especially when it comes to STDs.

You can't get around the fact that STDs decreased prior to abstinence only education becoming the norm. Since instituting that failed policy, STDs have increased.
 
Yeah, you're right. Rather than parents taking the time to go to the public library and read up on STD's to talk with their children, they should just blame it on what is or isn't being taught at school.
 
disappointed said:
Yeah, you're right. Rather than parents taking the time to go to the public library and read up on STD's to talk with their children, they should just blame it on what is or isn't being taught at school.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that parents aren't teaching abstinence only, as well?

And the sad fact of the matter is that many parents don't teach proper sex ed at home for a variety of reasons, and they certainly don't start teaching it early enough in many cases.

So, your soultion is for these kids to go without the information that could protect their health, and in many cases, save their lives?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top