CHICAGO - At least one in four teenage American girls has a sexually transmitted disease, suggests a first-of-its-kind federal study that startled some adolescent-health experts.
Some doctors said the numbers might be a reflection of both abstinence-only sex education and teens' own sense of invulnerabilty. Because some sexually transmitted infections can cause infertility and cancer, U.S. health officials called for better screening, vaccination and prevention.
Only about half of the girls in the study acknowledged having sex. Some teens define sex as only intercourse, yet other types of intimate behavior including oral sex can spread some diseases.
Among those who admitted having sex, the rate was even more disturbing — 40 percent had an STD.
"This is pretty shocking," said Dr. Elizabeth Alderman, an adolescent medicine specialist at Montefiore Medical Center's Children's Hospital in New York.
"To talk about abstinence is not a bad thing," but teen girls — and boys too — need to be informed about how to protect themselves if they do have sex, Alderman said.
The overall STD rate among the 838 girls in the study was 26 percent, which translates to more than 3 million girls nationwide, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. They released the results Tuesday at an STD prevention conference in Chicago.
"Those numbers are certainly alarming," said sex education expert Nora Gelperin, who works with a teen-written Web site called sexetc.org. She said they reflect "the sad state of sex education in our country."
"Sexuality is still a very taboo subject in our society," she said. "Teens tell us that they can't make decisions in the dark and that adults aren't properly preparing them to make responsible decisions."
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the study shows that "the national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure, and teenage girls are paying the real price."
Similar claims were made last year when the government announced the teen birth rate rose between 2005 and 2006, the first increase in 15 years.
The new study by CDC researcher Dr. Sara Forhan relied on slightly older data. It is an analysis of nationally representative records on girls ages 14 to 19 who participated in a 2003-04 government health survey.
The teens were tested for four infections: human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer and affected 18 percent of girls studied; chlamydia, which affected 4 percent; trichomoniasis, 2.5 percent; and genital herpes, 2 percent.
Dr. John Douglas, director of the CDC's division of STD prevention, said the results are the first to examine the combined national prevalence of common sexually transmitted diseases among adolescent girls. He said the data, now a few years old, likely reflect current prevalence rates.
Disease rates were significantly higher among black girls — nearly half had at least one STD, versus 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-Americans.
HPV, the cancer-causing virus, can also cause genital warts but often has no symptoms. A vaccine targeting several HPV strains recently became available, but Douglas said it probably hasn't yet had much impact on HPV prevalence rates in teen girls.
The CDC recommends the three-dose HPV vaccine for girls ages 11-12 and catch-up shots for ages 13-26. Continue >>
RSS
Just say no has never work for some teens and adults, never worked in America's Colonial period and it's not about to now While not perfect,"safer" sex seems to work better than just say no. Interesting how comparing human sexual activity to that of other animals seems to be OK for some if it works in their favor In the end it's silly to do so of so many ifs, ands, buts
max "What do you believe about life after death?"
At some point in the future- might be an hour from now, maybe tomrrow, maybe next year that something will cause my heart to stop pumping blood to my brain. My brain cells will be starved for oxygen and they will die which means I will probably be NO MORE.
scitsonga,
I agree humans have superior intellect . I don't know of any evidence for the soul however, I have my doubts something like that exists.
What do you believe about life after death?
"I'm not too sure humans really have that much control."
I would have to disagree with you on this as I know for myself and my wife neither one of us had sex before we were married not even with each other and its not because we did not have opportunity, its because we made a choice not to, realizing that there was and is something greater than a few moments of pleasure. We have been married now 14 years. I know many others who like us chose not to have sex before marriage and have been blessed beyond measure for that choice.
"Sexuality is so powerful and pleasurable, many do not poses the ability to resist. Much of the sex drive I believe is instinctive and can easily override rational thought that might otherwise protect us from more healthy choices in our sexual activities. Someone once said- "sex is the opera of the poor", there is truth in that."
I agree with you here, but I still believe we still make a choice and I personally believe that God gives me the strength to say no and to choose a better way and can do the same for anyone.
"Well sure, but we all make decisions that turn out to be bad for us. The best protection we an provide for our children, and society as a whole, is to educate about the potential hazards of sexual activity, its then up to the individual. Its an up hill battle though for the aforementioned reasons."
Totally agree that we need to warn our children about the dangers, it would be total irresponsibility not to warn them. I have 5 kids and many outlets in our home, I am not going to just let my kids stick their fingers in the socket without warning them of the dangers of doing so. However with saying that I do not cover up the sockets either. I believe that by warning them and encouraging them over time not to stick their finger in the socket they will get the idea and not do it. "Knock on wood" they havn't yet done it. The same is true with sex i need to inform them all that I can and not stop there but encourage them to choose a better path for their life and not give them the impression that they are going to screw up but that they can do better and overtime I believe they will make the right choice. Though I know that it is possible that they will not and give into their natural desires.
maximus, thanks for taking the time for your post.
"While I agree that we are a part of the animal kingdom, wouldn't you say that humans are set apart from other animals in that we have a intellect, will and soul?"
I agree humans have superior intellect . I don't know of any evidence for the soul however, I have my doubts something like that exists.
"I do agree that the sex drive in humans is very strong (thank God) but if in deed we have the ability to choose rather than act on instinct alone, can we not choose the better path in life for our sexuality?"
I'm not too sure humans really have that much control. Sexuality is so powerful and pleasurable, many do not poses the ability to resist. Much of the sex drive I believe is instinctive and can easily override rational thought that might otherwise protect us from more healthy choices in our sexual activities. Someone once said- "sex is the opera of the poor", there is truth in that.
"Wouldn't you say if they chose to practice "no sex" as safe sex then they would not find themselves reaping the destruction of STD's in their lives? Instead if they would choose the better way "sex between one man and one woman" that they could enjoy a life "disease free."
Well sure, but we all make decisions that turn out to be bad for us. The best protection we an provide for our children, and society as a whole, is to educate about the potential hazards of sexual activity, its then up to the individual. Its an up hill battle though for the aforementioned reasons.
maximus1973,
thank you very much. I appreciate criticisms of my blog for content. My heart is not to be offencive for the sake of being so but to push the limits to wake the hearts of the lost into the reality of what the Gospel is. If you feel that mission has been lost I would love to hear you opinion on it.
in Christ,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
Amendoza sorry for the attack
maximus1973,
I am very sure about that. In todays post-modern, 'God is love', everything is open to discussion society Christians need to stand up and share the Gospel. Fact: we are all siners bound for hell. Fact: Jusus Christ died for your sins and all you have to do is repent (ask for forgivness and turn from sin) and trust in Christ.
We dont need more 'witnessing techniques', we need to get back to the Gospel. It worked when Jesus used it so why do we need to sugar-coat it with 'sharing your faith through (insert popular song/movie here)'. Are we conceded enough to think that we are smarter than the phrophets were so we get to change the Gospel?
I find it amuzing that instead of countering any of my points, you chose to attack my blog and not even my content, just the headline.
God bless,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
scitsonga,
While I agree that we are a part of the animal kingdom, wouldn't you say that humans are set apart from other animals in that we have a intellect, will and soul? Another words do we not have the ability to choose, unlike animals who act on instinct alone?
I do agree that the sex drive in humans is very strong (thank God) but if in deed we have the ability to choose rather than act on instinct alone, can we not choose the better path in life for our sexuality?
I do agree with your statement "The world would be a much better place too, if human nature and behavior were different than what it is- less poverty and a better society if individual humans gave more directly to the good of society through volunteerism and donated more of their personal wealth to society, but that generally runs counter to the nature of most humans. Thats why communism doesn't work." But are not all of these a direct result of human choice? Please don't get me wrong I am not saying that people today who find themselves in poverty chose that, but somewhere down the line someone made a choice and because of that choice people today are reaping the consequences of that choice. The same is true with sexual choices. A girl may choose to have sex and contract a STD and someday have a baby and that baby contracts the same disease as it passes through the birth canal. It's not the babies choice but rather the consequences of the mothers choice. Most women contract STD's as a teenager and for most the symptoms do not show up till they are in their twenties. Wouldn't you say if they chose to practice "no sex" as safe sex then they would not find themselves reaping the destruction of STD's in their lives? Instead if they would choose the better way "sex between one man and one woman" that they could enjoy a life "disease free."
amendoza: "instead of coping with the problem, why dont we fix it. PREACH THE GOSPEL!!!!"
Give 'em the gospel, but at the same time inform them that any sexual activity carries with it risk and responsibility. To simply say, "the bible says don't do it," and leave it at that, is Wrong. Do not hold back information or protection.
maximus1973, "So you are equating us with animals? Just wondering?" Even if we threw out the Bible and just thought about facts. Just wondering your thoughts here."
Well yes, just the facts, humans are animals, we are not plants, we are not minerals, we are not fish. The human animal has most of the chracteristics of other members of the animal kingdom that allow for survival and propagation of the species.
"Would STD's, AIDS or anything other effect of our "animal act" actually exist if from the beginning we "animals" would keep sex to a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman?"
There certainly would be less of the aforementioned diseases if humans practice monogamy, but as in most other animal species, many humans do not, by nature practice monogamy. The sex drive is exceedingly strong in the animal kingdom, including humans, which causes many to stray from monogamy. The world would probably be a better place if humans practiced monogamy to a higher degree, but thats not reality. The world would be a much better place too, if human nature and behavior were different than what it is- less poverty and a better society if individual humans gave more directly to the good of society through volunteerism and donated more of their personal wealth to society, but that generally runs counter to the nature of most humans. Thats why communism doesn't work.
scitsonga,
So you are equating us with animals? Just wondering? Even if we threw out the Bible and just thought about facts. Would STD's, AIDS or anything other effect of our "animal act" actually exist if from the beginning we "animals" would keep sex to a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman? Just wondering your thoughts here.
Shequon,
It might be because we talk to people? Maybe that is the reason? I don't know, I guess you assume Christians live in boxes or something. For that matter you didn't make any response to what I wrote.
amendoza "I think that Abstinace only is a great thing "
Except that it runs counter to the natural tendency for all animals to engage in sexual intercourse, good luck with that one. You are fighting millions of years of evolution.
amendoza "what we are forgetting is that sex out side of marriage is a sin."
No, not really. as an agnostic I am not encumbered by such nonsense, its a natural part of the life cycle- allows propagation of all species.
Maybe they should throw this little ratio at Hillary Clinton? She will just go somewhere and kill a baby. That's right, vote for Hillary, higher taxes, less babies, more terrorism, but... at least we will deal with baseball! That's right... I am watchin' those Souther demmies in Congress... The Reps are saying "Listen... we have a big economical issue, gas prices are skyrocketting, the stock market is crashing, and Unions are pressing businesses into bankruptcy." The dems are saying "Let's talk baseball."
what we are forgetting is that sex out side of marriage is a sin.
Also,
the top STDs right now are herpes and HPV, both of wich a condom does not protect against.
instead of coping with the problem, why dont we fix it. PREACH THE GOSPEL!!!!
God bless,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
All parents think that they know their kids, but ut oh an unexpected pregnancy or 'walk-in-on' or std comes up and suddenly blame game takes place. Parents should be responsible for controlling their children, but face it - kids are smart. Promoting safer sex is better than promoting no sex.
How is it so many "good Christians," when the subject of birth control comes up, reveal that travel in circles where "several people" have had unplanned pregnancies due to broken condoms. I hang out with people you might consider heathens, yet I know none. (I know one person who got pregnant using no protection.)
By the way, have teens demonstrated ability to control themselves? For that matter, have adults? By all means, we should encourage abstinence, it's the "only" part that doesn't work (as Mrs. Spears can attest).
I know several people who have had condoms break and it resulted in a pregnancy. I have also known several people who started wearing condoms and then got curious (I mean you assume kids are stupid and can't control themselves so what do you expect?). Also, it is in no way a satisfactory protection against STDs. Abstinence only is the only way to be sure of anything. I do not like playing games with peoples lives and treating kids like they are idiots incapable of controlling themselves.
Shequon,
You cannot quote two celebrities and generalize that! That is absurd! Also I was defending my analogy. Why don't we tell kids this, "The absolute only way to prevent pregnancy and STD is Abstinence, and abstinence only. Condoms do not prevent either, they can help, but there is a good chance you will still end up getting STDs, or a Pregnacny."
I think that Abstinace only is a great thing (I am starting to work with a A-O program). I don't know if all programs out there do it this way but the program I am working with teachers about STD's.
While I think it is good to teach A-O, the problem in this society is the lack of purity. In the 50s, it was common for a couple to get married and be virgins but now it is peculiar. Parents have the responsibility to teach their kids about being pure and saving themselves. I know that if the concept of purity was not taught to me I would have had no reason for not having sex. To teens, the chance of getting an STD does not outweigh the pleasure of sex.
Also, you cannot place the blame on A-O teaching when 90% of music glorifies sex so much. we can tell a girl to save herself for marrage then she turns on the radio and hears all her favorite musicians talking about how great sex is.
Christian teens need to act like Christians and practice purity as well as stand up in this current generation about changing this sex obscessed society. There are two teenage girls that have made it their mission to stand in their schools for purity. check em out at purityfullyclothed.wordpress.com.
God bless,
Anthony
www.anthonymendoza.org
Once again, Chris, you got it wrong. I did not say I was against abstinence. I am against abstinence-ONLY education. I am not going to assume that a person is only going to drive that car under totally ideal conditions, never prepare for the alternative, never be on the road with unsafe drivers. We have seen where that road leads, three words: Jamie Lynn Spears (whose sister also used to tout the benefits of abstinence).
It is so typical for you to say that because I am against abstinence only education that I therefore want society to be like Caligula during a full moon. Politicians get away with lies like that all the time. And many of those politicians are the biggest hypocrites of all. (See: former FDA advisor Dr. David Hager)
SheQuon,
"Wrong analogy, Chris. Abstinence-only-ed. is assuming your son is never going to get behind the wheel at all, so don't even mention seat belts or not speeding!"
No, I think the analogy fits rather well. It assumes that there is a proper place and time for having sex, namely within marriage. Just as driving laws assume that there is a proper way to drive. If you break the correct way in either case, there is a good chance you will reap the rewards. I am surprised though Shequon, most on the "pro-(supposedly)safe sex" side will at least admit that marriage is the best place to have sex, and that "safe-sex" is only there because kids cannot hold their passions. But you seem to have taken a new route saying that sex is okay anywhere, any time, with anyone... Well, I would have to say that if this is your position then I am appalled, and the likeliness of your idea solving STD's and unwanted pregnancies is almost neglible. I have to ask if you are just being stubborn? You are digging your position into a hole the way you are going.
The research indicates that the so-called protections are not preventing STDs.
Give it up SheQuon.
Chris: ""Hey son, speeding is wrong, it is illegal, and you should never do it, but if you do buckle your seat belt and watch out for cops"?
Wrong analogy, Chris. Abstinence-only-ed. is assuming your son is never going to get behind the wheel at all, so don't even mention seat belts or not speeding!
maximus,
Well said. I agree as well that adults, specifically fathers are the main ones to blame for this. It amazes me how many Americans call themselves Christians and yet act the way they do. It would be better if they would call themselves atheists, than pretend to be Christians while they care nothing for the faith! We (myself included) need to repent and rededicate our lives to Christ and God who we serve.
Here's a thought, why not instead of pointing the finger just at teens that we realize that the majority of blame lies with us as adults. Where are the examples of adults that love each other and that grew up in Christian or non-Christian homes and did not have sex and now are married and STD free? Where are the examples of a man and woman like a friend of mine whose parents have been married for 76 years and love each with their whole heart and have never had to worry about STD's? Where are the examples of students right now that are doing everything they can to stay pure and free from STD's? No instead in this country we promote sex almost in every add, TV show, movie and song and target teens with unbelievable resolve and wonder why they are contracting STD's at alarming rates. Why not point the finger at ourselves at adults and realize that we have failed them with our own adulterous hearts and actions and begin calling adults to living a higher standard that teens can look up to. Why not challenge fathers to be fathers and love their daughters and instruct their sons. Oh wait what am I talking about this is America "the Land of the Free" or maybe I should say "The land of bondage". We as adults are not standing up for our teens and saying no more. I blame us as adults and specifically fathers for failing their children and thus failing this country and most importantly failing God.
Shequon,
I didn't say we shouldn't teach our kids about sex and the diseases that can be contracted from it, and pregnancy that can result. Rather I was commenting on the idiocy that says that abstinence-only causes these things.
Let's take an example, would you tell your kid, "Hey son, speeding is wrong, it is illegal, and you should never do it, but if you do buckle your seat belt and watch out for cops"? Or would you say, "Son cocaine is bad and you should never do it, but if you do, try not to overdose"? Why make such a silly compromise for sex? Are you saying, "Kids are weak, they cannot handle their passions, we have to prepare them for the inevitable"? Well this is about the most ridiculous thing, I wouldn't say, "Kids want new expensive clothes, the latest i-pod, and a brand new car, and so we have to just accept that they are going to steal things".
Hey, here is a novel idea, why don't we teach kids what is right? Why don't we start saying that sex only belongs within a monogamous marriage? It might actually do more for kids than saying, "Look son, you are stupid and can't control yourself, I know you are going to be fooling around and doing things that could have extremely bad consequences"
Sure when abstinence only fails and kids decide to have sex (with or without protection) they are no longer abstaining and put themselves at risk. Just the same as when a person starts breaking the speed limit they are no longer doing what is right and are putting themselves and others at risk. What is your point Shequon? We tell kids they must follow the speed limits, when they break it and get caught by cops or get in a wreck and kill someone we don't say, "Be more careful next time" We say, "Why didn't you do what you knew was right? It is too late to fix the consequences, but never do that again" You have failed to show how practicing abstinence only does not have a 100% effectiveness rate for all sexual problems.
I would add it teaches kids self control and self-worth. Rather than assuming kids are stupid and are incapable of controling themselves, parents treat their kids with dignity and instill values in them. But hey I am not complaining about atheists, atheists do not have any set values they care about, if they do they make them up. I am not talking to all the non-Christians out their, they can do what they want to, and reap the consequences of it if they want to.
<i>Some doctors said the numbers might be a reflection of both abstinence-only sex education and teens' own sense of invulnerabilty. Because some sexually transmitted infections can cause infertility and cancer, U.S. health officials called for better screening, vaccination and prevention.
Only about half of the girls in the study acknowledged having sex. Some teens define sex as only intercourse, yet other types of intimate behavior including oral sex can spread some diseases.
Among those who admitted having sex, the rate was even more disturbing — 40 percent had an STD.
"This is pretty shocking," said Dr. Elizabeth Alderman, an adolescent medicine specialist at Montefiore Medical Center's Children's Hospital in New York.
"To talk about abstinence is not a bad thing," but teen girls — and boys too — need to be informed about how to protect themselves if they do have sex, Alderman said.<i/>
I have a difficult time believing that 'abstinence only" education is responsible for these troubling findings. More likely, just the throes of secular society are:
Several reasons.
One--it is unlikely that Abstinence education is all that widespread. I cannot imagine that many school districts have allowed this, and only THIS, kind of education about the human body and sex. More likely a mix at most is what we're seeing in SOME districts. So the study might be blaming a wide brush of events with a small smattering of things labelled "abstinence."
Two--secular culture is POWERFUL in influence and EVEN IF abstinence "only" education were widespread by now (which I note is far from likely), its recent addition to any curriculum on sex is very limited in its power to undue several decades of explicit material serving as "information only." In some school districts no doubt only good information is given, but we all know that in some areas a more radicalized format with PC commentary is certainly included. California is one of those states that the majority of districts include by law every manner of Politically Corect secularism posing as "merely information."
Lastly, I don't know of ANY parent either among those of us in the homeschooled community or who have their kids in the public schools who merely say "don't do it" and have supplemental materials for the youth that are age appropriate and discuss in detail the mechanics of sex and our expectations as Christian parents of what Scripture says about marital relationships, etc.
So it is NOT about "just saying no"--wonderful resources are out there for all people.
I think the real issue here (and not know the full identity and habits of these kids) is that secular ideas about sex are just difficult to overcome. The world's ways are like lying down with pigs. We get dirty, and the pig enjoys it, and the pigs learns little. We should learn if nothing else we get filthed in the process. The part about teen invulnerability is also key here.
This is what happens with "absinence only" education when some teens inevitably fail to be abstinate. No back-up plan. They all think they have wills of iron, then when their guards are down they take no precautions. You think Jesus would say, "Hey, I'd like you all to be abstinate, but if you're not, you're on your own"?
The article goes on to talk about myths that teens believe. That is what you get when you don't give them enough information; they make up the rest as they go along, and pass misinformation onto each other.
Chris333... Funny, over the past couple of days... hasn't this been stressed in another article? Maybe the light will come on regarding this issue as well as others.
Hyper....
t's not up to the schools to teach them, it's the parents. It's hard to see how secular humanist's who believe that this is proper, would think differently. This is totally within the confines of their religion of secular humanism. These numbers are no different than they have been in previous years. If they were going to change, you would think that they'd changed already. There's a reason for that.
In fact, IMHO, Christians shouldn't allow non-christians to teach their kids any subjects. The biggest regret I have in life concerning our children is that we didn't Xian school them or homeschool them.
Hyperion,
I would disagree, having "God in the schools" (though not a bad thing persay) would not have solved this problem. Rather, having Christian parents who actually raise their kids and teach them the difference between right and wrong would have made the difference. Having Christians who actually live their faith rather than just speak it would have solved the problem. The vast majority of "Christians" act just as secular as the vast majority of atheists. That is the source of the problem. Sure the schools are a part of the problem, but the bigger and main problem is lukewarm, secular Christians.
I’m going to predict that radical opponents of abstinence-only education will argue with everyone else about the “terrible consequences” of stigmatizing sex. They will say something to the effect “By allowing young girls the freedom to speak more openly and comfortably about their sexuality, these problems can be addressed in a sex barrier free forum, to quote the lead singer of ‘Garbage’, “Sex is not the Enemy” “
Uuuh, a loaded gun is not your enemy either, until you close your eyes and start shooting, because you think the chances of hurting someone are nil.
And the more comfortably people can speak about ABUSING something while trying to skirt the consequence, the more comfortable they will be with doing it. And the myths about STDs will continue, so kids will still do it without protection, because they think straightforward sex will be the only other way to transmit disease; the other way of course is to sit on a dirty toilet seat. And let’s not forget that many teenagers have the incredible ability to tell if a potential “score” is clean by looking at them.
The problem is not a lack of education … it’s too much education (brought to you by prime-time & late-night television, internet, MTV, etc … sponsored by Coca-Cola – latest 2007 slogan, “Give a Little Love and it All Comes Back to You”)
this is why God shouldve stayed in schools, this wouldve saved us the knd of trouble we're in.
Amazing how when you take the girls who had sex, the numbers jumped to 40%, but before the "doctors" were saying abstinence only is part of the problem. Strange, you would think the girls who were practicing abstinence only would have had higher numbers, I mean that was the problem right? These people are crazy. I wonder how many of the girls who had sex were using protection or were taught that they should use protection, probably 90%. Most teenagers know this, most at least start off trying to do this. Many still get STDs, others are overcome with curiousity and don't use protection. Clearly this is not the answer, it is crazy that people still support this stupidity. If sex was contained to monogamous marriage between men and women, STDs would be gone in a few generations. Do people not understand this? Any liberals who support "(not so) safe sex" want to comment? Anybody here not understand that practicing abstinince means a 0% chance of unwanted pregnancy, STDs, and various other problems?
I mean really...
the more you push the light out the more to darkness comes in
Deep in a person's heart, one knows that sex is proper only within the boundaries of marriage. God gave each one of us a conscience. We either allow it to help us to set appropriate boundaries or allow the culture to desensitize one's conscience to point of utter ineffectiveness. When the latter occurs, the result is moral recklessness and moral abandonment. Alas, we reap, as a society, the seeds that we have planted.