STDs rife among US teenage girls

Damocles said:
Condoms are often stolen in places where you are supposed to be ashamed about their purchase. Stores will move them behind the counter in order to keep their inventory.
Click to expand...

In many cases it's suspension on school grounds, expulsion on buses. Some schools here are even banning hugging as it's considered a PDA.
 
TexasMeg said:
Yup condoms, pregnancy tests and lube all locked up. Can't you just see a 16 year old kid asking manager, "Sir, would you mind unlocking the cabinet for me? I'd like the ribbed for her pleasure."
Click to expand...

Well, I looked it up and it does seem to be common in some stores. Walgreens and Rite Aid make it a policy to stock them on the shelf and CVS is working on some sort of theft deterrent display that will leave them accessible.

I have honestly never seen that, except maybe at convenience stores.

We should be focusing on ways to make kids less embarassed about buying condoms. The manufacturers and sellers would have an obvious stake in that. Maybe they can be tapped for some funding.
 
Dungheap said:
Yes, I'm being dishonest. Meanwhile, you assert that one speaker symposium sponsored by the Conference on World Affairs, not as part of the sexual education curriculum wherein abstinence was supposedly "ridiculed" and the teachers involved were verbally reprimanded and in response to which the district superintendent stated that some of the content of the program was in direct contradiction with district health and conduct standards, constitutes the entirety of the Boulder School District sexual education curriculum.

Gotcha.
Click to expand...
Yes, school-sponsored programs where ridicule of the supposed curriculum is in order is definitely part of what they actually teach.

And you are pretending that the reaction that they had after they got caught is what would have happened without public attention being brought to bear on the situation. Again, pretending that ridicule is teaching that it is a positive thing is pretense, and pretending that such symposiums don't effect the kids in such negative ways is still more pretense.

Yes, in this case they got caught and then went around saying, "that's not part of the curriculum!" after the fact, but it is like Spitzer, only sorry they got caught.
 
TexasMeg said:
Yup condoms, pregnancy tests and lube all locked up. Can't you just see a 16 year old kid asking manager, "Sir, would you mind unlocking the cabinet for me? I'd like the ribbed for her pleasure."
Click to expand...

I can imagine going in to such a store and harassing the clerks.

"I'll take the ribbed."

Look it over.

"On second thought, maybe, one with spermicidal jelly."

Look it over.

"Do you have any in extra large." :)

repeat
 
Damocles said:
Yes, school-sponsored programs where ridicule of the supposed curriculum is in order is definitely part of what they actually teach.

And you are pretending that the reaction that they had after they got caught is what would have happened without public attention being brought to bear on the situation. Again, pretending that ridicule is teaching that it is a positive thing is pretense, and pretending that such symposiums don't effect the kids in such negative ways is still more pretense.

Yes, in this case they got caught and then went around saying, "that's not part of the curriculum!" after the fact, but it is like Spitzer, only sorry they got caught.
Click to expand...


Actually, the assembly was not part of the sexual education curriculum from the outset. At all. It was sponsored by something called Conference on World Affairs which is organized by the University of Colorado. It had nothing to do with the sex ed curriculum and was a voluntary assembly that teachers could choose to have their classes attend or not. Further, if you read up on the Conference on World Affairs, part of the concept is to have smart people talk about things that they aren't necessarily experts in. Clearly that idea can backfire.

You could just admit that Boulder offers a comprehensive sexual education curriculum consisting of abstinence plus and move on but you always have to argue these trifling points.

The bottom line is that, yes abstinence-only is stupid and that yes, no abstinence at all is stupid. The problem is that only the former exists so railing against the latter is just tilting at windmills.
 
blackascoal said:
HEALTHCARE IS THE ONLY ANSWER

Calling for more condoms is looking for the cheap way out.
Click to expand...


Maybe you could elaborate on that. I mean, shouldn't we try to prevent people from getting diseases and isn't prevention much cheaper than treatment and isn' that a good thing.

I understand that healthcare is important, but isn't focusing on treatment of disease instead of prevention like closing the barn door after you caught syphilis?
 
Dungheap said:
Actually, the assembly was not part of the sexual education curriculum from the outset. At all. It was sponsored by something called Conference on World Affairs which is organized by the University of Colorado. It had nothing to do with the sex ed curriculum and was a voluntary assembly that teachers could choose to have their classes attend or not. Further, if you read up on the Conference on World Affairs, part of the concept is to have smart people talk about things that they aren't necessarily experts in. Clearly that idea can backfire.

You could just admit that Boulder offers a comprehensive sexual education curriculum consisting of abstinence plus and move on but you always have to argue these trifling points.

The bottom line is that, yes abstinence-only is stupid and that yes, no abstinence at all is stupid. The problem is that only the former exists so railing against the latter is just tilting at windmills.
Click to expand...
I agree, abstinence only is stupid. We all agreed on that. It is foolish to keep repeating this as if we need to be convinced.

Again, this school left it as it was until they were caught then reacted with what you described. They hired people to ridicule their curriculum and would not have even suggested it was bad without the light that was shined on their idiocy.

You could argue that they have that curriculum, but you can't argue that they support it.
 
Dungheap said:
Maybe you could elaborate on that. I mean, shouldn't we try to prevent people from getting diseases and isn't prevention much cheaper than treatment and isn' that a good thing.

I understand that healthcare is important, but isn't focusing on treatment of disease instead of prevention like closing the barn door after you caught syphilis?
Click to expand...

We live in a sex and drugs driven society .. both, illicit and illegal, advertised on American TV everyday.

We should indeed focus on prevention .. but given the rising statistics, that ain't working.

Access to healthcare gives those infected an opportunity to be healthy and prevent further complications of diseases that go unchecked and unstopped .. and add a greater cost to society later on.

American teens are having sex .. lots of it .. and we have to deal with this reality and ensure a healthy population.
 
STDs don't have to be accepted as a necessary reality. They can be reduced to the point of irrelevance by distributing condoms and prevention education.
 
Condoms provide considerably less protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than they do against pregnancy.

That's because a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (that's two to three days each month) but STDs can pass from partner to partner at any time of the month.

STDs are frequently passed through "skin to skin" contact even when condoms are used. This can happen because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.

So, even if the virus or bacteria isn't passed through tears or holes in the condom itself, you can still get diseases because condoms don't cover or protect all areas of the genital region. That means condoms don't prevent many of the STD infections that take place during sexual contact.

http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html

HEALTHCARE
 
Last edited:
Thank you, I'm aware.

I didn't say it was a utopian solution, I said it could serve to reduce them which you substantiated with your post.
 
Epicurus said:
Thank you, I'm aware.

I didn't say it was a utopian solution, I said it could serve to reduce them which you substantiated with your post.
Click to expand...
Much of the cause of spread is that those kids are not getting tested. Condoms do not protect well against what most are infected with (already covered in the thread). The kids are spreading the diseases because they are not getting treated, not because they don't know about condoms. And they are largely not getting treated because they do not realize that they are at risk for these STDs.
 
That's why I get tested every three months, and would support sex ed classes to encourage kids to do the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top