STDs still on the rise, report says

[jillio]

Sorry, that's not genetic. Eye color is genetic; viruses are not.

He meant transmitted congenitally.

 

[Reba]

No one wants to, but the unfortunate reality is that it happens. And if you truly believe that people will avoid sex outside of marraige, you are indeed living in a fantasy world.

I never said that, did I? As long as people don't have personal self restraint, we'll have people infected with STDs.

It has never happened, and it is never going to happen. So let's deal with the reality, and educate as a preventive measure to negative consequence.

If you think education will solve the problem, you are the one living in a fantasy world.

 

[Reba]

There you go! The answer to the rise in STDs and teen pregnancy is to send the bookmobile out more often.:roll:

That's not what I said. Not even close.

 

[Jiro]

If you think education will solve the problem, you are the one living in a fantasy world.

but wouldn't you agree that education will lower the current statistic?

 

[jillio]

I never said that, did I? As long as people don't have personal self restraint, we'll have people infected with STDs.
And since human beings are famous for not having personal self restraint, and it is such a common occurrance as to be accepted, believing that abstinence from sexual relationships outside of a monogamous marraige will lower the rates of STDs is a bit of a fantasy. The rise in diagnosis speaks for itself. And the fact that STDs have never, in the history of medicine, been eradicated.
If you think education will solve the problem, you are the one living in a fantasy world.

Education certainly does more to minimize the problems than does expecting that teens will be abstinent. Hence the research showing that teens who take abstinence pledges differ in their sexual behaviors only in that they do not use protection.

 

[Daredevel7]

I saw in a few posts about how some people did get sex education and they still made mistakes.

I did get sex education but it came in the form of basic "where do babies come from", a birthing video and some sort of a heat sensor video of an erection (dont ask!). That is it. So the QUALITY of the sex education has to do with it too. I dont even remember if they talked about birth control and condoms!

My mom was too embarrassed to talk about it with me, and instead just handed "Where did I come from?" book to me with cartoon illustractions of fat old naked people. I think I started asking around 11-12 years old. "Why do people have sex?" Obviously, I didn't know anything about orgasms back then!!! Later on, maybe when I turned 15/16, she DID start to warn me to use protection, which is kind of amusing because I didnt lose my virginity until years later!!!

 

[jillio]

They have the potential to spread thru sexual contact. But that doesn't mean they were spread that way when compiling the statistics.

Potential infection isn't the same as actual infection.

Exactly. And that is what I said. The etiology of the infected person is noted by the CDC when compiling statistics. That doesn't change the fact that the infected individual has the potential to spread the disease through sexual contact. If that infected individual does spread it to a sexual partner, then that sexual partner's etiology would be STD and it would be noted as such in the statistics.

BTW, not all STDs are viral.

 

[jillio]

I saw in a few posts about how some people did get sex education and they still made mistakes.

I did get sex education but it came in the form of basic "where do babies come from", a birthing video and some sort of a heat sensor video of an erection (dont ask!). That is it. So the QUALITY of the sex education has to do with it too. I dont even remember if they talked about birth control and condoms!

My mom was too embarrassed to talk about it with me, and instead just handed "Where did I come from?" book to me with cartoon illustractions of fat old naked people. I think I started asking around 11-12 years old. "Why do people have sex?" Obviously, I didn't know anything about orgasms back then!!! Later on, maybe when I turned 15/16, she DID start to warn me to use protection, which is kind of amusing because I didnt lose my virginity until years later!!!

True...which is why we need comprehensive and accurrate education.

 

[Babyblue]

I have said in a previous post that sex ed needs to teach about STD and prevention. How to use a condom. How boys and girls can protect themselves.

The only sex ed back in the 80,s I got was about "puberty".

That was it. Girls grow boobs, menstruate hygene.

Boys I'm. Not sure what they learned but they came out of class with a stick of deodorant. While us girls came out with a sample of a brand name pad.


So sex ed does need to add more and explane more.
About our bodies and what the consequences are.

 

[Reba]

Exactly. And that is what I said. The etiology of the infected person is noted by the CDC when compiling statistics. That doesn't change the fact that the infected individual has the potential to spread the disease through sexual contact. If that infected individual does spread it to a sexual partner, then that sexual partner's etiology would be STD and it would be noted as such in the statistics.

It does effect the statistics when presenting the number of people who are infected. If they didn't get the disease thru sexual contact, then it's misleading to use their numbers to support sex education methods.

BTW, not all STDs are viral.

I never said they were.

 

[jillio]

It does effect the statistics when presenting the number of people who are infected. If they didn't get the disease thru sexual contact, then it's misleading to use their numbers to support sex education methods.


I never said they were.

Statistics are presented according to etiology. The people who did not contract the disorder from sexual contact are not in the statistic presentation for those who did. Even if total cases diagnosed are presented, they are broken down by etiology.

 

[Reba]

Statistics are presented according to etiology. The people who did not contract the disorder from sexual contact are not in the statistic presentation for those who did. Even if total cases diagnosed are presented, they are broken down by etiology.

Can you prove that is the case for every study that is published? I didn't see any such break down in the original posted article.

 

[jillio]

Can you prove that is the case for every study that is published? I didn't see any such break down in the original posted article.

Thats because it is an article, and not a published study. And I don't need to prove anything. I know that the CDC is the source for incidence and prevalence statistics regarding any disorder, so when one reports CDC statistics regarding incidence and prevalence, they also have to cite the CDC.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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.

That remind me of my Roman Catholic Grandmother. She called my sister's children as "bastard children" because my sister was not married.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

And when it comes to Bristol Palin's son--they come to her defense. :roll:

mmmhhhhh nodding agreement...

 

[Byrdie714]

You misunderstand my english sentences.



you won't have to worry about catching anything if you sticks with the same person all your entire life, that's great, no worry about being sick from AID, HIV or STD.

Not giggling about AID, HIV or STD...I'm saying you don't have to worry about catching anything by sticking with the same person and that's great, giggle!

Didn't I mentioned it wasn't funny ..hmmmm!

If you mentioned that it wasn't funny--then why add the " "?

If it was funny--you would add the " ".

 

[Byrdie714]

Thats because it is an article, and not a published study. And I don't need to prove anything. I know that the CDC is the source for incidence and prevalence statistics regarding any disorder, so when one reports CDC statistics regarding incidence and prevalence, they also have to cite the CDC.

Exactly.

Can you prove that is the case for every study that is published? I didn't see any such break down in the original posted article.

You know how tedious that would be?

 

[Byrdie714]

Exactly. And that is what I said. The etiology of the infected person is noted by the CDC when compiling statistics. That doesn't change the fact that the infected individual has the potential to spread the disease through sexual contact. If that infected individual does spread it to a sexual partner, then that sexual partner's etiology would be STD and it would be noted as such in the statistics.

BTW, not all STDs are viral.

The scary thing is that there are individuals out there with an STD that continue to spread the disease knowingly.

 

[jillio]

The scary thing is that there are individuals out there with an STD that continue to spread the disease knowingly.

Yes, there are unfortunately, and that is another scary topic in itself.

 

[Jiro]

The scary thing is that there are individuals out there with an STD that continue to spread the disease knowingly.

there were several criminals cases of those who knowingly spread STDs that result in deaths like HIVs being charged with murder or something.