# Who's Teaching What in Schools?



## Granny (Jan 28, 2011)

Some Knox Co. parents are upset about the Planned Parenthood people coming into the schools as guest speakers.  This has gotten a lot of news coverage the last couple of days.  Thank God my children are way beyond school age - but I looked at some of the links given in the news report.  One thing that one parent was incensed about was that the teacher "made a mistake" and forgot to pass out "opt out" forms for parental consent to participate in the program.  

I've never had to deal with the sex ed situation but I was curious since there's so much being said about the subject.

Pretty interesting - do any of you as parents know about the sex ed classes in your child's school?  Also, I know we have a couple teachers on USMB - what are your thoughts?

Concerned parents rally over Planned Parenthood in schools

I'm going to have to edit after posting this because I can't remember the title of one link that sort of raised my eyebrows.  Oh, and very often in the various links they refer to "sexuality education" as opposed to "sex ed."

The link "actual presentation" was the one that raised my eyebrows - sort of a curriculum.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 28, 2011)

Are you saying that teens should not be taught sex ed in school?

Is not teen pregnancy a problem?  Better to find out the real story about it rather than from rumors and such by classmates.

Parents by and large to a poor job of sex education.
Mine were so into religion they never would even say the word "sex".  Pretty hjumerous considering they had 6 children don't you think?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 28, 2011)

Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".

I think it's safe to say it does nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence.


----------



## Granny (Jan 29, 2011)

This appears to run a bit deeper than "sex ed."  It's one thing to teach anatomy and quite another to teach "sexuality education" and promote sexual promiscuity as "perfectly normal."  Teens have a way of believing "that [it] will never happen to me" in their pursuit of popularity, curiosity about sex, teen drinking, drug use and doing stupid things.  And, of course, for several years they truly believe their parents are dumber than rocks.


----------



## old navy (Jan 29, 2011)

Teens having sex, getting pregnant, doing drugs, gangbanging, and whatnot are issues that go beyond what schools should be held responsible. It is too easy to blame the decay of society on schools and specifically teachers. We can only do so much. A little help from parents would be nice. I cringe every time I hear or read "Education Reform" or "Health Care Reform." No one really can explain what they mean when they say it. Our test scores are way lower than a butt load of other countries but we still lead the world in technology, research, and medicine. Why? We still have the smartest and hardest working people in the world but the test score averages are brought down by kids who can barely speak English or read and do math at their grade level.

Getting back to the forum question. I teach two health and medical sciences courses in high school. I teach girl and boy body parts and the functions. I stay away from the ethical aspect as that is not my job. Whose job is it? See the above paragraph.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 29, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".
> 
> I think it's safe to say it does nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence.



That is completely false.  Even study that has investigated abstinence-only education has found higher teen pregnancy rates, higher transmission of STDs, and increased abortions.  This is factual reproducible evidence.  No, your unsupported hunch backed by the credentials of having possibly spawned a child yourself does not refute every verified scientific study on the topic.

Planned Parenthood is one of the most knowledgeable organizations with regards to sexual education.  If they were there just promoting abortion, I think it's safe to say that the message would be strongly inappropriate, but I have yet to hear any evidence of this being the case.  They were teaching sex-ed, just as any middle-aged manly female gym teacher would have done, but they were in a much better position to answer questions.

Teenagers are teenagers.  If you are so foolish to believe they can't figure out what SEX is despite raging hormones and modern media, you are denying their biology and intelligence.  

It sounds to me the issue isn't that kids were learning about safe sex topics, but that the name "Planned Parenthood" pissed off a lot of unthinking soccer moms.


----------



## 1uscitizen (Jan 30, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".
> ...



"soccer moms" is so passe.  (I hate being stereotyped)
"manly female gym teacher"....that's ok.


----------



## Luissa (Jan 30, 2011)

Planned Parenthood!


----------



## dalethomas1 (Feb 14, 2011)

Ya I think that there are no study in today's modern schools they are only perform formalities.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Granny said:


> This appears to run a bit deeper than "sex ed."  It's one thing to teach anatomy and quite another to teach "sexuality education" and promote sexual promiscuity as "perfectly normal."  Teens have a way of believing "that [it] will never happen to me" in their pursuit of popularity, curiosity about sex, teen drinking, drug use and doing stupid things.  And, of course, for several years they truly believe their parents are dumber than rocks.



Who are these parents who do such a crappy job of instilling values in their kids, one school assembly can turn them 180 degrees?  Are you seriously saying a nice boy or girl will become a slut after viewing a single PP presentation?

I dun get what we think might could be the payoff for keeping kids ignorant in a world where sex can kill, and most certainly can ruin lives.  

Can anyone explain that to me?


----------



## chanel (Feb 14, 2011)

The students in our school get one marking period of health (9th, 11th, and 12th grade) and sex ed is only one unit within the health curriculum.  In 10th grade they have Driver's Ed for health.  How much time each teacher spends on it varies.  It is taught by gym teachers. I have a feeling they focus more on STDs than pregnancy.

Our home ec teacher does a wonderful project with the kids with the robot babies (who cry a lot).  It's an eye opener for them; esp. the boys.  Unfortunately, it's done with the seniors.  I believe most unwanted pregnancies occur in 10th grade.

I just checked out PP's "teen talk" site.  They've cleaned  it up a lot since the last time I checked.  They even have adoption information now.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

I dun understand how anyone can blame teen pregnancies on sex ed when we have MTV , etc. showing soft porn to 10 year olds.



> Today, my five year old daughter was watching cartoons on TV. Then a Barbie commercial came on. My daughter sang along with the theme song "Be who you want to be, B-A-R-B-I-E." She then turned to me and said "Mom, I want to be a hooker." FML



FML: barbie, search barbie on Fmylife


----------



## strollingbones (Feb 14, 2011)

i taught social science, sex ed fell under that.  i got out of teaching due to the negative response of parents and administrators to the subject.  i do not care how careful you are in your choice of reading and your choice of words, someone is always offended.  the main reason most parents cannot cope with teaching sex ed is they have very little knowledge of it themselves.  my sex ed courses were more than how to put a condom on but it was an included subject.  shrouding the subject just causes more ignorance.  if parents were simply sit in on these classes they would find them not to be so shocking and may learn a thing or two.

o and i think the subject should be taught by a teacher inside the school.  you are dealing with a sensitive subject and you should be there all year to deal with it.  i do not care for this drive by things like planned parenthood.  you have to stay and see the effects of what you are teaching, daily.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Feb 14, 2011)

I personally do not believe in sex ed for my children as I will cover that myself but see the need for it to be taught in schools.  The classes need to be there and children need a basic understanding of sex and its consequences/responsibilities.  That said, I am naturally suspicious of any organization that derives it money from things like abortions giving a sex ed class.  That is something that an impartial educator whose only loyalty lies in educating the children.  Anyone else that may pose an agenda does not belong in the classroom.  Why would they use planned parenthood in the first place.  There is nothing that the children need to know that an educated teacher cannot supply them with.  That is what they are there for anyway, is it not?


----------



## Annie (Feb 14, 2011)

My children had sex education in grammar school, 4th grade, as did I. Shockingly yes, Catholic school I went to had it in mid-1960's. It was on physical development, sex act, pregnancy, and early childhood development. In school sex was dealt with as part of marriage. For both programs we were separated by sex, so were my kids 25+ years later. 

The first part on anatomy and physical development was outsourced and a field trip:

Robert Crown Center for Health Education

Again, my kids and myself went to public high schools and once again sex ed was covered, in 9th and 10th grades. First was about sex and contraception, stds. Second was on child care and expenses. My daughter went to the same high school I did for her first 2 years, all of them went to another high school after that, in same county.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 14, 2011)

FA_Q2 said:


> I personally do not believe in sex ed for my children as I will cover that myself but see the need for it to be taught in schools.  The classes need to be there and children need a basic understanding of sex and its consequences/responsibilities.  That said, I am naturally suspicious of any organization that derives it money from things like abortions giving a sex ed class.  That is something that an impartial educator whose only loyalty lies in educating the children.  Anyone else that may pose an agenda does not belong in the classroom.  Why would they use planned parenthood in the first place.  There is nothing that the children need to know that an educated teacher cannot supply them with.  That is what they are there for anyway, is it not?



Why would planned parenthood be there in the first place?  Because they are a lot more knowledgeable on the subject than you are.  Do you feel you can accurately give the strengths and weaknesses of each type of contraception?  Signs and symptoms of each STD?  Oil or water based lubricants?  If you are getting your information from the internet, what makes you think you are better qualified than your kids?  This is a topic that requires some semblance of experience.


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 14, 2011)

Granny said:


> Some Knox Co. parents are upset about the Planned Parenthood people coming into the schools as guest speakers.  This has gotten a lot of news coverage the last couple of days.  Thank God my children are way beyond school age - but I looked at some of the links given in the news report.  One thing that one parent was incensed about was that the teacher "made a mistake" and forgot to pass out "opt out" forms for parental consent to participate in the program.
> ....



Planned Parenthood?  They probably gave the black students a "have one abortion, get another one free" coupon.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 14, 2011)

Whats so bad about planned parenthood?


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Annie said:


> My children had sex education in grammar school, 4th grade, as did I. Shockingly yes, Catholic school I went to had it in mid-1960's. It was on physical development, sex act, pregnancy, and early childhood development. In school sex was dealt with as part of marriage. For both programs we were separated by sex, so were my kids 25+ years later.
> 
> The first part on anatomy and physical development was outsourced and a field trip:
> 
> ...



I might support teaching about STDs at a younger age, but elsewise this sounds just about right to me, Annie.  I assume neither you nor your kids were corrupted by that information?

Morality cannot be enforced by ignorance.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Whats so bad about planned parenthood?



The right demonizes PP because in many communities, it is the sole abortion provider, High Gravity.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Whats so bad about planned parenthood?
> ...



Is planned parenthood putting guns to womens heads and forcing them to abort these babies? if these women didn't abort these babies they would end up on welfare, food stamps, cash aid, section 8 etc and people would still complain. Let these women do what they need to do and everyone keep the fuck out of it, I don't see anyone here lining up to adopt any black orphans.


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Whats so bad about planned parenthood?



Just search for Planned Parenthood exposed.  If was started by Margaret Sanger.  Look her up.  Why do you think the black population has remained steady at 13%?


----------



## Nosmo King (Feb 14, 2011)

We need a rock-ribbed Conservative approach to sex education.  A curriculum that teaches abstinence only and a solid, well thought out plan to eliminate unwed mothers.

I know!  I have the answer!  the one person who can save this country from promiscuity and loose morals.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 14, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Whats so bad about planned parenthood?
> ...



I'll look into it but like I said were these girls forced to abort their children? people would complain even more if these girls kept these children they couldn't afford and they all ended up on welfare, wic, food stamps, cash aid, section 8, etc. that would all cost a ton of money, and everyone would complain that blacks have too many children like they say about the Hispanics.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 14, 2011)

Nosmo King said:


> We need a rock-ribbed Conservative approach to sex education.  A curriculum that teaches abstinence only and a solid, well thought out plan to eliminate unwed mothers.
> 
> I know!  I have the answer!  the one person who can save this country from promiscuity and loose morals.



Fuckin hot.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



"Keeping out of it" seems to be far too stressful for some folks.  They seem to feel a deep need to run the lives of others.  

Ironically, these are often the same folks who agitate against any assistance to the poor.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...




Thats EXACTLY what I am saying Maddie, imagine if no black woman had gotten an abortion in the last 20/30 years, alot of these women would have ended up on section 8, cash aid, welfare, food stamps etc. and this would have cost the government a ton, these idiots need to shut their mouths and just let these women do what they have to do, and you are right these are the same people griping about having to acommodate Mexicans and their huge families.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Xsited is correct. Sanger was part of the eugenics movement, which has been historically associated with Nazism.  However, the sort of eugenics Sanger supported was preventing additional births for families that already had kids, people who may have deformed kids, etc.

Not quite as evil as some make her out to be.  I think we could do with a touch of eugenics, personally -- I'd support sterilizing people guilty of felony child abuse, e.g.


----------



## Annie (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > My children had sex education in grammar school, 4th grade, as did I. Shockingly yes, Catholic school I went to had it in mid-1960's. It was on physical development, sex act, pregnancy, and early childhood development. In school sex was dealt with as part of marriage. For both programs we were separated by sex, so were my kids 25+ years later.
> ...



Actually I found the information good, though my parents had covered with my brother and I before the 'trip' as did I with my kids. Dealt with sex as it was brought up. Robert Crown gave out 'kits' for each sex. Both contained brochures recapping the presentation and feminine products for girls. 

I think that the lower grades should teach what sex is and the way of the reproductive system. I personally think that beyond that should be either at high school age or perhaps an elective course that parents agree to, not mandated and opted out of. 

I don't think teaching about the sex act and reproduction leads to early sex, however I do think that assumptions of everyone is having sex does. I think there's been a tendency to over sexualize youth today. In fact the average age for first sexual intercourse experience was 17, boys earlier. Lower socioeconomic status, parents divorce, etc., all impact. average age having sex site:.edu - Google Search


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Forced?  No.  Heavily persuaded?  Yes.  

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't think of children as a punishment or a burden.  And if our stupid adoption laws were changed, most people wouldn't have to go out of the country to adopt and could adopt in the US, but that's another issue entirely.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 14, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



How do you feel about welfare, section 9, food stamps etc? do you support those programs or view them as unnecessary hand outs? because alot of the girls who got these abortions would have definently needed those programs if they kept the children.


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Welfare, Section 8, Food stamps, etc., are necessary programs.  The problem is they are abused and over used.  To me, the opposite of compassion is to allow people to become dependent on such programs, so they have to be managed properly. 

I understand where you're coming from.  I just don't agree.  IMO, future generations will look back on abortion in the same way we look back on slavery today.


----------



## xsited1 (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Whats so bad about planned parenthood?
> ...



It's not just the Right.  Me, for example.


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 14, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



I was just wondering, because alot of the people I have talked to that are anti abortion are also fiercely against welfare, food stamps, section 8 etc. what they don't realize is alot of these young girls that got the abortions would need the help of these programs if they did keep the baby, not everyone has a family with money to support them.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Annie said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



What worries me is the rising prevelance of oral sex among middle schoolers, who seem to feel this is "not sex" as they cannot get pregnant.  This is an excellent way to transmit HPV, and if I had a babygirl or boy these days, I think I'd be getting them vaccinated.  For sure, I'd be talking to them at home, and I would prefer all the kids in their school knew about the risks.

Apart from that, I'd say your experience was just about ideal.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

xsited1 said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



LOL.  Trust me, xsited, you are right of center politically.


----------



## Annie (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Funny thing that, perhaps my friends and I were anomalies. Only 1 of us out of 7 had sex before 19, by 21, all. First oral sex experience came after intercourse. Thankfully I must say, I've no idea of my own kids. One thing I've not heard. 

I blame the media during the Clinton years for that. Mind you, NOT Clinton-though the "I did NOT have sex..." was just too quotable. 

I know the years after there was a spike in oral sex among teens reported heavily, I don't know if it's still true or just carried on as 'truth.'


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Annie said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



No, HPV infection rates in pre-teens is definately on the rise, Annie.  I blame the internet, the general culture and hell yes, Bill Clinton.  Why not -- I despise him.  How are kids supposed to "want to grow up to be president" when the evening news is all about his BJs?


----------



## High_Gravity (Feb 14, 2011)

Bill Clinton is to blame for teens having oral sex? most of these kids were in diapers when the man was in office!


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Bill Clinton is to blame for teens having oral sex? most of these kids were in diapers when the man was in office!



I dun think he is SOLELY responsible High Gravity.  Just a contributing factor.


----------



## Annie (Feb 14, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Bill Clinton is to blame for teens having oral sex? most of these kids were in diapers when the man was in office!



I never blamed Clinton, but the media. At that time many kids read at least the front page of the newspapers. Maybe today it's better, the papers have become so bad, no one subscribes anymore. Yep, during the Clinton years they left Woodward and Bernstein and turned to 'gotcha news.' It's worked out well, hasn't it?


----------



## Madeline (Feb 14, 2011)

Annie said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Bill Clinton is to blame for teens having oral sex? most of these kids were in diapers when the man was in office!
> ...



How can you blame the news media?  If Nixon had engineered the Watergate break in to get a BJ, you think that would not have been reported?

I'm amazed at this notion that the blame lies no with the evil-doer, but with those who make his deeds public. Just look at this post, for God's sake.  We had discussions about BJs in every office and every school in the country thankies to him.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 14, 2011)

Madeline said:


> Morality cannot be enforced by ignorance.


This is a FANTASTIC point.



Annie said:


> I don't think teaching about the sex act and reproduction leads to early sex


That much we know to be true.  Every study that has ever looked into that topic has found decreased or no change in sexual activity after sex ed is started, and an increase in safe sex practices.



xsited1 said:


> I don't think of children as a punishment or a burden.


To  what socioeconomic class do you belong? What culture?  Better yet: do you think your beliefs should dictate how others view the topic or what can be done about it?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Feb 14, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > I personally do not believe in sex ed for my children as I will cover that myself but see the need for it to be taught in schools.  The classes need to be there and children need a basic understanding of sex and its consequences/responsibilities.  That said, I am naturally suspicious of any organization that derives it money from things like abortions giving a sex ed class.  That is something that an impartial educator whose only loyalty lies in educating the children.  Anyone else that may pose an agenda does not belong in the classroom.  Why would they use planned parenthood in the first place.  There is nothing that the children need to know that an educated teacher cannot supply them with.  That is what they are there for anyway, is it not?
> ...


Yes, I feel I can give a sex ed class to my own children FAR better than PP and better than any teacher.  This has much less to do with knowledge than the fact that an open conversation with your parents on sex and its effects is worth far more than the information itself.  That openness and relationship foster an environment around the subject that you will need as a parent if you wish to influence your children's choices in life.  I am not saying the information is not extremely important or that I do not have the information to present but the 2 way relationship is even more important.  Planned parenthood is not going to be there when these situations occur and you will.  Sex ed should never be on its own anyway.  It is more of a supplement to what you and your child should be talking about.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 15, 2011)

I agree that the ideal situation would be for parents to speak to their children, but the large majority of parents do not have all the facts on the topic.  Again I ask: do you think you do?  Can you answer all the questions I posed in my previous post?

Standardized knowledge is necessary.  You state "open conversation with your parents on sex and its effects is worth far more than the information itself."  I disagree.  If the information is wrong, misleading, or deficient in key concepts, it doesn't matter how well you think you are bonding with your children.  Once again, I can't help but point out that children who only learn abstinence as their sex ed, be it from parents or schools, are far worse off.  

That's not to discourage open conversation with your children, but it does mean that the correct things need to be said, and that is NOT something that Americans have shown themselves to be proficient in.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Feb 15, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> I agree that the ideal situation would be for parents to speak to their children, but the large majority of parents do not have all the facts on the topic.  Again I ask: do you think you do?  Can you answer all the questions I posed in my previous post?


For the most part, yes.  Much of those questions you asked are irrelevant though.  I do not need to know the advantages of one contraceptive over another for example.  That is a matter that needs to be discussed with a doctor that would be prescribing it though the basics like condom use I can convey.  


SmarterThanHick said:


> Standardized knowledge is necessary.  You state "open conversation with your parents on sex and its effects is worth far more than the information itself."  I disagree.  If the information is wrong, misleading, or deficient in key concepts, it doesn't matter how well you think you are bonding with your children.


I never said the knowledge was not necessary or unimportant, just that the open conversation between you and your child is even more important.  It is important to have the info but it is VERY important for you to be involved.  If you think your child is going to make good decisions because of some instructions that they got from a stranger for one afternoon then you are sadly mistaken.  As a parent, you need to be deeply involved in order to guide your child.  If you are asking the school system to do your job for you and not instilling the wisdom and morals that you hold dear then your children are likely to be a basket case.  This one aria is no exception.  You need to be there for your children when it comes to sexual morality and practices just as much as anywhere else and of you are not then those values and good decisions are not likely to happen.


SmarterThanHick said:


> Once again, I can't help but point out that children who only learn abstinence as their sex ed, be it from parents or schools, are far worse off.  That's not to discourage open conversation with your children, but it does mean that the correct things need to be said, and that is NOT something that Americans have shown themselves to be proficient in.


Where have I said that I do not want sex ed taught in schools?  Where have I opposed that practice?  I directly stated that I wanted it taught.   Abstinence is not sex ed and no one here has even whispered that it should be taught.  We all know that is moronic and repeating it like that is the only opposition to the OP is rather mundane.  I stated that an EDUCATOR, not a representative from a politically active organization, one that sells a service no less.  This is not simply because this is planned parenthood.  I am not opposed to the organization itself though I disagree with some of it activism.  Nor is this the only instance that I would not want a politically active organization in our schools.  I do not want ANY political entity there.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 16, 2011)

FA_Q2 said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the ideal situation would be for parents to speak to their children, but the large majority of parents do not have all the facts on the topic.  Again I ask: do you think you do?  Can you answer all the questions I posed in my previous post?
> ...


And that's certainly a good thing, but don't you think teenagers should receive more information than just a single doctor's appointment?  Here's a better question: what percentage of teenagers do you think go visit a doctor just before they expect to become sexually active to discuss their options?  If they don't know what options are even available, why would they go seek them?  Teenagers can learn condom use by reading the box.  Society needs more than the basics, though getting the information again from parents is always a good thing. 



FA_Q2 said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Standardized knowledge is necessary.  You state "open conversation with your parents on sex and its effects is worth far more than the information itself."  I disagree.  If the information is wrong, misleading, or deficient in key concepts, it doesn't matter how well you think you are bonding with your children.
> ...


Deeply involved?  In their sex?  I can guarantee that when your kids are having sex, you are NOT involved. Parents can certainly help in safe sex goal, and I'm glad to see you are so invested in the well being of your children, but such is not an asset afforded to most children.  To that end, they need to hear it from as many people as possible, be it strangers or otherwise. Time and time again it has been shown that education is what reduces unwanted outcomes.  The more, the better.  Parents rock, if they invest themselves appropriately. 



FA_Q2 said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I can't help but point out that children who only learn abstinence as their sex ed, be it from parents or schools, are far worse off.  That's not to discourage open conversation with your children, but it does mean that the correct things need to be said, and that is NOT something that Americans have shown themselves to be proficient in.
> ...


I was not inferring you have promoted abstinence only education.  The point is that we know that parents left to their own devices have three outcomes: providing full factual information on the topic, providing a mix of fact and error, and providing nothing.  If we leave things for parents to do on their own, we will get a lot of the middle category, which is abstinence teaching, and a TON of the last category.  

This all brings me back to my underlying point: good parenting is awesome, but standardized information is an absolute necessity.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 16, 2011)

What may be overlooked is the value to society at large, and to the parents of kids who know their ABC's of sex, to be surrounded by other kids who do as well and not by young'uns who believe -- as many did when I was young -- that you can't get pregnant on your first time, or that douching with coke is an effective form of birth control.


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 17, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > High_Gravity said:
> ...



Women? We are not talking about women, we are talking about children and teenagers. 

You do not see people lining up to adopt Black Orphans. Then you may be a bigot. Serious, I told my wife we would adopt if she wanted a daughter, I am pretty far right neo con conservative, you think color came to mind, not at all, My wife is half Portugese/African, my kids are thus 1/4 African, not African-American, but African-Brazilian, if you do not see me lining up for a black daughter that is only because your a bit ignorant or a bigot. 

Where the shoe that fits best.


----------



## mdn2000 (Feb 17, 2011)

Sex education, it should be Biology that is taught. Sex, that takes about two minutes, a man is designed to get woman pregnant. You do that with the penis ejaculating in the vagina. It feels real good. 

The whores are for everyone, you do not marry the whores or sluts. 

I will have my kids taught before the first grade, I will tell them everything they need to know, like the anal canal was designed for excreting human waste, nothing more. That covers homosexuality.

As far as pregnancy goes, I will teach that there is no greater wonder or pleasure in the world than having children. I will teach them its a mystery and gift to cherish. I will teach them that abortion is the most un-natural, harmful things a woman can do to herself. I will teach them its murder to abort babies and that they should know how the woman feels about this before they have a relationship with any woman. 

I will teach them the horror of Abortion and the life long traumatic effects the woman live with. I will teach them that many woman suffer physically. 

Yes, sex education, its how we reproduce, its not that complicated. I will have to teach the kids to make sure they are clean and showered and not having sex in dirty cars or other places that are not clean. 

Most important though, through my love and attention I give my kids, they will realize that it really is great to have a family. If my kids get a woman pregnant in her teens, I will have taught them that the greatest part of thier life has just begun. 

I guess I will have to have this talk with any girls my kids bring home. It would be pretty dumb to trust parents or teachers with this critical responsibility.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 17, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> It would be pretty dumb to trust parents or teachers with this critical responsibility.


Case in point.......


----------



## FA_Q2 (Feb 18, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > It would be pretty dumb to trust parents or teachers with this critical responsibility.
> ...



I get it, I do and I think that we see things somewhat similarly on the issue.  You keep arguing that it is not enough to trust that parents will take care of this and I have agreed with that several times.  You stated:


> This all brings me back to my underlying point: good parenting is awesome, but standardized information is an absolute necessity.


And I have agreed with that.  The only difference is that I place more importance on the parenting aspect.  Hell, we have major problems now and the information IS standardized and taught in schools but the parenting is what is missing and that is where our problems are coming from.  Hands down, schools will NEVER be sufficient enough to address this issue and, quite frankly, parenting will never get there as long as we have this insane view on sex that Americans seem to have.  My main point to the OP was, and remains, that I believe planned parenthood has absolutely zero reason to be the educator here.  That is what we have teachers for.


----------



## Madeline (Feb 18, 2011)

> Mdn wrote in part:
> 
> Where the shoe that fits best.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 18, 2011)

FA_Q2 said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...



I agree with everything except the last sentence.  If they are experts on the topic, and ina better position to be teaching and answering questions, why wouldn't we want them in that position?


----------



## Madeline (Feb 18, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



I think you two agree to such a degree, your differences are miniscule, STH.  I could live with either of your POVs.

Are we done posting Raptor Jesus images?  I &#9829; them, LOL.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Feb 18, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



Because they represent a politically active organization.  No matter what you perceive their actions are, good or bad, they are quite politically active.


----------



## blu (Feb 19, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".
> 
> I think it's safe to say it does nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence.



fallacy garbage from the board idiot


----------



## blu (Feb 19, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Are you saying that teens should not be taught sex ed in school?
> 
> Is not teen pregnancy a problem?  Better to find out the real story about it rather than from rumors and such by classmates.
> 
> ...



nah you just have to wait for the holy spirit to intervene and teach peple that there bodies are icky but then suddenly become okay once they get married


----------



## blu (Feb 19, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".
> ...



don't feed trolls


----------



## Douger (Feb 19, 2011)

You guys are tripping in the past. Any 10 year old who has been on the Internet unsupervised likely knows more about sex ( and weird sex) than most of you .
In the sixties little boys browsed the underwear section of the Sears catalog.
Now they browse Ass to Mouth, 13.5, The Final Snowball.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 19, 2011)

FA_Q2 said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


and?  you think teachers don't have political ideas?  There's no problem in having a political position.  The problem is having an incorrect or unethical position.


----------



## editec (Mar 5, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> *Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".*
> 
> I think it's safe to say it does nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence.


 

Poppycock.

Not that I am an advocate of SEX ED, Allie, I still think you're full of beans with that stat.

Show us the numbers, please.


----------



## chanel (Mar 5, 2011)

Those stats are wrong.  Latest CDC report says the rate is declining.



> ATLANTA &#8211; Fewer teens and young adults are having sex, a government survey shows, and theories abound for why they're doing it less. Experts say this generation may be more cautious than their predecessors, more aware of sexually spread diseases. Or perhaps emphasis on abstinence in the past decade has had some influence.
> 
> Or maybe they're just too busy.
> 
> ...



US teens, young adults 'doing it' less, study says - Yahoo! News

I've been saying for quite some time that a comprehensive approach, INCLUDING ABSTINENCE, is the most sensible way to go.  Seems the stats back that up.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 5, 2011)

yes, so long as abstinence isn't the only thing being taught, and actual safe practices are included, things work out better.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

Granny said:


> Some Knox Co. parents are upset about the Planned Parenthood people coming into the schools as guest speakers.  This has gotten a lot of news coverage the last couple of days.  Thank God my children are way beyond school age - but I looked at some of the links given in the news report.  One thing that one parent was incensed about was that the teacher "made a mistake" and forgot to pass out "opt out" forms for parental consent to participate in the program.
> 
> I've never had to deal with the sex ed situation but I was curious since there's so much being said about the subject.
> 
> ...



I attended a "sex ed" class in the 5th grade.  It wasn't bad at all and none of our parents had a problem with it. They separated the boys and girls and had the presentations in different rooms.  We were able to anonymously ask questions that we had and we got to learn alot about it.  They also scared the shit out of us when it came to catching STDs..lol

I think parents are overacting.  It's not like the act of intercourse changes from family to family.  My the position, but not the act.  There's nothing wrong with teaching students about the act itself and possible consequences.  

The problem is when someone starts throwing in personal opinions about it.  I also don't agree with teaching kids how to put condoms on...it's pretty self-explanitory.  It's like tampon commercials- Why do we need to see them on TV, women know they exist and they know what their function is....we don't need a song or music video about the female menstral cycle with a red dot bouncing around all over the screen.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



That's right.  There's nothing wrong with having a political position.  I told my students what my political position was.  But I assured them that they had the right to have their position.  I didn't push my political ideas or positions on them.  I gave them both sides of the debates and let them decide for themselves.  This is what helps the learning process; when students can debate things in a controlled setting.  I did, however, make sure that if my students were trying to prove a point then they should at least have "some" specific reason why their opinion was the way it was.


----------



## Samson (Mar 6, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Are you saying that teens should not be taught sex ed in school?
> 
> Is not teen pregnancy a problem?  Better to find out the real story about it rather than from rumors and such by classmates.
> 
> ...





You do realise that saying the word "sex" does not ensure pregnancy, right?


----------



## Annie (Mar 6, 2011)

chanel said:


> Those stats are wrong.  Latest CDC report says the rate is declining.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yep, I said it earlier in this thread:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/152880-whos-teaching-what-in-schools-2.html#post3320875

Seems to me that quite a few things have happened in the past decade or so to change some young people's minds about 'anything goes.' 9/11 for one. Sure the kids in high school were little kids then, but they are going to schools where yearly they remember those killed in the wars that attended the schools. Many have fathers, brothers, friends, moms, sisters that have served or are serving. 

Second has been the economy. Students are more serious, at least where I teach. They do have their goals set on college, it certainly fits the area we live in. However, they are also concerned about the costs, scholarships, and after school jobs. 

Both of these factor more maturity than we saw in the same ages prior to this decade or so. Maturity tends to bring with it more responsible behavior and sure enough sex isn't the only risky behavior on the downswing. Report: Teen Drug Use Up, Binge Drinking Down | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 14, 2010 | PBS

MJ use is up, a bit. That may be a result of parents and society giving messages that it's less dangerous.


----------



## rdean (Mar 6, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".
> 
> I think it's safe to say it does nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence.



Or was "sex ed" brought into the equation AFTER teen pregnancy increased astronomically?  Better find out before you make such a bold statement.  Being old, I remember the past.  I don't have to "make it up" or "rewrite it", the way the right wing does to fit their tiny world view.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 6, 2011)

BrianH said:


> I attended a "sex ed" class in the 5th grade.  It wasn't bad at all and none of our parents had a problem with it. They separated the boys and girls and had the presentations in different rooms.  We were able to anonymously ask questions that we had and we got to learn alot about it.  They also scared the shit out of us when it came to catching STDs..lol
> 
> I think parents are overacting.  It's not like the act of intercourse changes from family to family.  My the position, but not the act.  There's nothing wrong with teaching students about the act itself and possible consequences.
> 
> The problem is when someone starts throwing in personal opinions about it.  I also don't agree with teaching kids how to put condoms on...it's pretty self-explanitory.  It's like tampon commercials- Why do we need to see them on TV, women know they exist and they know what their function is....we don't need a song or music video about the female menstral cycle with a red dot bouncing around all over the screen.


wow.  first off, the reason for the tampon commercials is NOT educational.  It's marketing.  Individual companies are attempting to reach a target audience and sell their specific products.  

Regarding sex ed: condom use is only self-explanatory for people who already know how to properly use one.  Or do you think a teenager fumbling in the dark in the heat of the moment is a good situation to learn?


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > I attended a "sex ed" class in the 5th grade.  It wasn't bad at all and none of our parents had a problem with it. They separated the boys and girls and had the presentations in different rooms.  We were able to anonymously ask questions that we had and we got to learn alot about it.  They also scared the shit out of us when it came to catching STDs..lol
> ...



I didn't imply that women didn't know how to use them, therefore, they need a commercial.  My point is that women know they exist, and they know where to get them.  We don't need a blood colored dot jumping around the screen telling us what it is. We don't need a picture of a maxi-pad with simluated blood (water) flowing all over it, thus, proving it's reliablity.  The next thing you know they'll be showing people wiping their ass and removing symbolic shit with Charmin toilet paper.
 As far as your condom "response"...1. Is it not self-explanitory? I guess maybe it's hard for you guys with 3" penises.  If you really have trouble with it, then run to the bathroom and read the instructions real quick.  Or get the girl to put it on with her mouth...lol


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 6, 2011)

BrianH said:


> I didn't imply that women didn't know how to use them, therefore, they need a commercial.  My point is that women know they exist, and they know where to get them.  We don't need a blood colored dot jumping around the screen telling us what it is. We don't need a picture of a maxi-pad with simluated blood (water) flowing all over it, thus, proving it's reliablity.  The next thing you know they'll be showing people wiping their ass and removing symbolic shit with Charmin toilet paper.
> As far as your condom "response"...1. Is it not self-explanitory? I guess maybe it's hard for you guys with 3" penises.  If you really have trouble with it, then run to the bathroom and read the instructions real quick.  Or get the girl to put it on with her mouth...lol



By your reasoning, perhaps we should eliminate all advertising unless a new product is created.  Clearly Coca Cola and Doritos have absolutely no need to make super bowl commercials because everyone already knows that soda and corn chips exist!  Do these companies know they can be saving millions of dollars a year if they used your strategy!? 

The FACT remains that companies advertise in an attempt to increase their profits, regardless of the type of company or product.  Sorry you don't like red bouncy balls and pad absorption demos, but people who are a lot richer than you don't really care. 

Regarding condoms: as I said, a teenager fumbling with a condom in the heat of the moment in the dark is not a good learning ground. Condoms can be put on wrong.  The question you should be asking yourself is: should teenagers be taught how to use them properly to decrease their risk of misuse, or shouldn't they?  It's a simple question.  While thinking about that, please keep in mind that statistics regarding contraception use of all varieties include both "ideal use" and "actual numbers", which are different for a reason.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't imply that women didn't know how to use them, therefore, they need a commercial.  My point is that women know they exist, and they know where to get them.  We don't need a blood colored dot jumping around the screen telling us what it is. We don't need a picture of a maxi-pad with simluated blood (water) flowing all over it, thus, proving it's reliablity.  The next thing you know they'll be showing people wiping their ass and removing symbolic shit with Charmin toilet paper.
> ...



How about this?  Why don't the students be required to read the instructions on a condom rapper as sex education rather than actually demonstrating how to put it on?  

As far as the commercials, your right.  Less commericals would be great.  I won't have to turn the damn tv down every time one comes on.  And they would probably make just as much money.  A turd scooper in Guatemala knows what Coca Cola is.  I would be fine with only seeing commercials for things that are new.  We have the internet net now, if someone wants to look up tampons, then they can.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 6, 2011)

What school systems do you know of that require students to demonstrate use?  Requiring students to read the instructions is equivalent to just TELLING them the same instructions.  The latter at least ensures some form of ensuring the information is passed on.  

You're still not getting the reasoning behind advertising.  It isn't to educate.  It's to entice people to purchase their products.  Coca Cola is where it is today not because they have a superior product to every other cola that tastes exactly the same, but because of their advertising.  The point isn't to cater to the viewer's wishes.  The point is to increase profits, and that generally happens at the inconvenience of many people needing to see ads.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 6, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> What school systems do you know of that require students to demonstrate use?  Requiring students to read the instructions is equivalent to just TELLING them the same instructions.  The latter at least ensures some form of ensuring the information is passed on.
> 
> You're still not getting the reasoning behind advertising.  It isn't to educate.  It's to entice people to purchase their products.  Coca Cola is where it is today not because they have a superior product to every other cola that tastes exactly the same, but because of their advertising.  The point isn't to cater to the viewer's wishes.  The point is to increase profits, and that generally happens at the inconvenience of many people needing to see ads.



I'm not quite sure where you're going with the condom issue.  You're talking in circles.  At this point I'm not sure if I agree with you or not.

How many people do you know that actually get "enticed" by commercials?  Not very many.  You see a thousand commericals a day and don't act on 99% of them.  How many people do you know that jump up during a tampon commercial and say "whoowee! let's get some of those!"  

This is my personal opinion.  I don't think it's necessary, and I don't think companies are going to lose profits if they quit advertising.  People HAVE to buy products.  They are smart enough to figure out if those products will work for them.  When I grocery shop, a "commercial" does not sway my decision in buying certain products.  This personal choice comes from the trial and error of actually purchasing the product.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 6, 2011)

BrianH said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > What school systems do you know of that require students to demonstrate use?  Requiring students to read the instructions is equivalent to just TELLING them the same instructions.  The latter at least ensures some form of ensuring the information is passed on.
> ...



There are no circles here: sex ed including condom use is of benefit to society.  Plain and simple.  It ensures that people are exposed to the proper use at least once, which is not guaranteed if you place the responsibility on each person to read the instructions. 

Your personal opinion regarding advertising is wrong.  Advertising does directly influence purchasing and thus increase profits when done correctly, which is why it continues.  Personal choice may come from trial and error, but you're not trying everything on the shelf.  You're picking the "popular" brands, believing they are popular because of advertising, and you're trying the cheap store-version.  Here's an easy way to prove my point.  Go into your bathroom right now and tell me what kind of toothpaste you used today.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...



First, I stated that I had a sex-ed class in the 5th grade.  that's not the proper age to show students how to put on condoms IMO.  

Second, how in the hell can you assume that you know how I shop?  I've tried the equate toothpaste and it sucks.  I never saw an advertisement that enticed me to try it.  It was cheaper.  I may have Crest toothepaste, but I have hill country fair chips in my pantry. (which is a knock off created by the local grocery store-and they taste great.)  I have NUMEROUS items and products in my house that are not "name-brand" items that I have seen commercials about.  I'm not going to discuss my entire life-style.  But I'll bet that the majority of people tend to lean towards the products they personally feel are better than the other.  They may by a name-brand product and decide it's shit and perfer the non-name brand product because it's just as  good and cheaper.... Price tends to drive my shopping these days, not advertising.


----------



## britgyll (Mar 7, 2011)

If you are totally into price alone you should shop at the deli at walmart for the worst crap they slap into a piece of plastic in front of your eyes. They don't care how it looks and it will make you lose your appetite. I'll bet your care less about price after that.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

britgyll said:


> If you are totally into price alone you should shop at the deli at walmart for the worst crap they slap into a piece of plastic in front of your eyes. They don't care how it looks and it will make you lose your appetite. I'll bet your care less about price after that.



I didn't say I shop for price alone.  If it tastes like dog turds I'm not buying it.  I'm just saying I don't see a commercial on TV and then go run and write it on my grocery list because it enticed me to buy that product.  If it is a new product worth trying then I'll buy it if I've seen a commercial for it...but once I've tried it I either like it or I don't.  I don't sit around and wait for the next commercial to come on before I go get some more of it.  Eventually products get "advertised" by word of the consumer's mouth.  "Have you tried that new anal itch cream?"  "Why yes, I've tried it and it works wonders!"  That's why I'm saying I have no problem with an advertisement of something that's new, but we all know Coca Cola exist and we know where to get it.  We all know what tampons are, who makes them, and where to get them.  We all know that if we can't get an erection, our Dr. can perscribe us a pill to help with it.  I think advertisement is overrated...


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Mar 7, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Are you saying that teens should not be taught sex ed in school?
> 
> Is not teen pregnancy a problem?  Better to find out the real story about it rather than from rumors and such by classmates.
> 
> ...



My oldest understood pretty well. He has rubbers on hand at all times. I had the "talk" with him when he was 14. he is 19 now and not a daddy. My youngest Son has had the talk and no babies yet. And the Daughter has received the talk from her Mom and still no babies yet. Impulse control is what is causing the rise in teen pregnancy not lack of education. By age 10 most kids in modern have a good idea of how the birds and bees work from there time watching TV. What you see there is planned parent hood trying to matter in the face of having its budget cut.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 7, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> *Teen pregnancy increased astronomically with the advent of "sex education".*
> 
> I think it's safe to say it does nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence.



Stats to back that up please....start by indicating what year(s) sex education started in schools.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Mar 7, 2011)

I dont know that it caused it to rise, but it has done little if anything to prevent it. And as I think back to high school class it did not help me and the Wife  that much As we followed there instructions and she still got pregnant, and yes a condom was used properly. There is only one fool proof plan to avoid getting knocked up.Boy's, keep it in your pants, Girls,  you need to hold a penny with your knees. I also saw no comments on the fact that thees kids are coming down with the clap and syphilis. This with pregnancy can be blamed on planed parenthood with there policy of keeping thees kids sexual activity a secret from the parents. It will get better when they cut funds from planned parenthood.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 7, 2011)

BrianH said:


> First, I stated that I had a sex-ed class in the 5th grade.  that's not the proper age to show students how to put on condoms IMO.
> 
> Second, how in the hell can you assume that you know how I shop?  I've tried the equate toothpaste and it sucks.  I never saw an advertisement that enticed me to try it.  It was cheaper.  I may have Crest toothepaste, but I have hill country fair chips in my pantry. (which is a knock off created by the local grocery store-and they taste great.)  I have NUMEROUS items and products in my house that are not "name-brand" items that I have seen commercials about.  I'm not going to discuss my entire life-style.  But I'll bet that the majority of people tend to lean towards the products they personally feel are better than the other.  They may by a name-brand product and decide it's shit and perfer the non-name brand product because it's just as  good and cheaper.... Price tends to drive my shopping these days, not advertising.



Sure, you can argue about what is the optimal age to teach kids about condom use, but not about whether it should be taught at all.

Second, you just proved I know exactly how you shop.  I stated "You're picking the popular brands, believing they are popular because of advertising, and you're trying the cheap store-version."  You then go on to state you use a name-brand toothpaste, and purchase cheaper store-versions of other things.  

NEVERTHELESS, the reason you reached for crest is because you thought it was better in some way than the next brand.  Similarly, advertising rarely makes people jump out of their seats because they must purchase that product at that moment.  No, it works by familiarizing someone to the name, giving them subtle reasons to buy it, and hoping they recognize their product the next time they're in the store.  

Again, advertising works and tremendously increases profit, regardless of what you think.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 7, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> I dont know that it caused it to rise, but it has done little if anything to prevent it. And as I think back to high school class it did not help me and the Wife to be that much As we followed there instructions and she still got pregnant, and yes a condom was used properly. There is only one fool proof plan to avoid getting knocked up.Boy's, keep it in your pants, Girls, keep you need to hold a penny with your knees. I also saw no comments on the fact that thees kids are coming down with the clap and syphilis. This with pregnancy can be blamed on planed parenthood with there policy of keeping thees kids sexual activity a secret from the parents. It will get better when they cut funds from planned parenthood.


It sounds like you're rather uneducated on this topic.  

Planned parenthood, along with ALL MEDICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND DOCTORS, do not share sexual or mental health issues with parents.  This has consistently been shown to be beneficial for the minors.  Giving kids reasons to avoid seeking help is a good way to make a bad situation worse.


----------



## BrianH (Mar 7, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > First, I stated that I had a sex-ed class in the 5th grade.  that's not the proper age to show students how to put on condoms IMO.
> ...



So you think people aren't familiar with Coke?  Dr. Pepper? Crest?  That's a load of dog shit.  People are already familiar with these names. 

As far as how I shop, I just told you I have no problem with seeing commercials for something that is new.  As far as my name-brand toothpaste, it had nothing to do with any commercials I've seen showing women with accessive smiling habits.  I use it because it was better than the other brand, not because it had a shinier label or had a commercial...


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Mar 7, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know that it caused it to rise, but it has done little if anything to prevent it. And as I think back to high school class it did not help me and the Wife to be that much As we followed there instructions and she still got pregnant, and yes a condom was used properly. There is only one fool proof plan to avoid getting knocked up.Boy's, keep it in your pants, Girls, keep you need to hold a penny with your knees. I also saw no comments on the fact that thees kids are coming down with the clap and syphilis. This with pregnancy can be blamed on planed parenthood with there policy of keeping thees kids sexual activity a secret from the parents. It will get better when they cut funds from planned parenthood.
> ...



No, it has not. it may be ok for your kids to run around and screw everything that walks (if you have any) And you are also wrong about mental health or any other Dr.'s not sharing treatment records with parents. Kids wont avoid seeking help. We did not avoid it any way. And even if that were the case Planned Parenthood has done nothing to slow teen pregnancy, and have done even worse in regards to VD.  the only thing planed parent hood is let the kids know ware they can abort babies, and treat VD. Nothing else. By the way, they kill more black babies then any other race. Ware is the out rage ? It will be all better when they are defunded.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 7, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> > It sounds like you're rather uneducated on this topic.
> ...


Your anecdotal "reasoning" is painful to read.  It doesn't matter what you personally would do or not do.  Nor does your insignificant experience in this world account for anything compared to evidence based understanding.  

The reason that the governing bodies of the medical world protect minors regarding these issues is because evidence shows it decreases bad outcomes.  Plain and simple.  

Effect of mandatory parental notification [JAMA. 2002]
Limiting Confidentiality of Adolescent Health Services
Access to medical care for adolescents
"The most common reason for missing care was not wanting a parent to know (35%)."
Assessment of health needs and willingness to utilize health care resources of adolescents
Confidentiality in health care.[JAMA. 1993]
"A majority of adolescents have concerns they wish to keep confidential and a striking percentage report they would not seek health services because of these concerns"

The Journal of Pediatrics, Journal of Adolescent Health, and Journal of the American Medical Association, researching this very issue across thousands of children, prove you wrong.  The question you need to ask yourself is whether you are so stubborn as to reject all of these evidence based scientific studies for your unsupported anecdotal reasoning.

Access to confidential healthcare has not been shown to increase risk behavior.  This was the ridiculous argument ignorant parents posed as the reason they were against the HPV vaccine.  Vaccination against STD does not increase risky sexual behavior any more than providing confidential medical help.  What it does is provide a service for a minor that would otherwise suffer in silence.  Your choice.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Mar 8, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > SmarterThanHick said:
> ...





Home Page > Health > Women's Health > STD Rates Among Youth Rising, CDC Says
STD Rates Among Youth Rising, CDC Says
Edit Article | Posted: Oct 27, 2009 |Comments: 0 | Views: 541 |
0Share
Ads by Google
Free Stock Photo Worldwide Stock Photo Community Browse and Buy 10,000,000+ Images Dreamstime.com
Verizon's Best Price Business High Speed Internet As Low As $24.99/Month & Free Equipment! Verizon.com/SmallBusiness
Elmhurst Gynecologist Call Us Today for Professional Gynecology and Obstetric Care. ParadigmObGyn.com
See Singles Near You Now Meet Singles in Your Area - Browse Profiles and Pics for Free! Singles.Match.com

After improving for years, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases have stopped dropping and in some cases increased, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported recently.

The annual rate of AIDS diagnoses among males aged 15 to 19 years has nearly doubled in the past 10 years, from 1.3 cases to 2.5 cases per 100,000 persons between 1997 and 2006, the CDC report said.

Gonorrhea, Syphilis Rates Increase

Similarly, after decreasing for years, gonorrhea and syphilis infection rates among adolescents and young adults have increased. Among males aged 15 to 19 years the gonorrhea rate increased from 250 to 275 cases per 100,000 between 2004 and 2006. The rate for syphilis among females aged 15 to 19 years increased from 1.5 to 2.2 cases per 100,000 from 2004 to 2006. Both rates followed decreases in previous years, the report said.

It is disheartening that after years of improvement with respect to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, we now see signs that progress is stalling and many of these trends are going in the wrong direction, said Janet Collins, Ph.D., director of CDCs National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

About one million adolescents and young adults aged 10-24 years were reported to have chlamydia, gonorrhea, or syphilis in 2006, the report said. Nearly a quarter of females aged 15-19 years, and 45 percent of those aged 20-24 years, had a human papillomavirus (HPV) infection during 2003-2004.

Approximately 100,000 females aged 10-24 years visited a hospital emergency department for a nonfatal sexual assault injury during 2004-2006, according to the CDC.

STD Symptoms Threatening

Over 65 million Americans are now affected with an incurable STD, according to the CDC. General symptoms can include unusual discharge from the penis or vagina, a burning feeling when urinating, growths, itching sores in the genital area, lower abdominal paid, dark urine, skin rashes or sores, yellow eye, fever, headache, nausea, joint inflammation and enlarged lymph nodes.

Bacterial STDs, such as gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia can usually be cured with antibiotics. Even with treatment, any damage already caused is permanent. Viral STDs such as herpes, HIV/AIDS and human papillomavirus (HPV) are considered incurable, but can be treated. If infected, it is important to seek treatment immediately.

If untreated, STDs can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which can lead to infertility, cervical cancer, chronic pelvic pain, tubal (ectopic) pregnancy, damage to major body organs, and death.

Abstinence Is Best

According to the CDC, the surest way to avoid pregnancy or any infection of a sexually transmitted disease is to practice sexual abstinence while single. Those who marry are best protected by selecting a partner who is not infected with an STD and remaining sexually faithful during marriage.

Read more: STD Rates Among Youth Rising, CDC Says
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

STD Rates Among Youth Rising, CDC Says


And this too-

CDC Report Indicates 19 Million New STDs Annually
November 24, 2010 0 Comments
Posted in News, Infectious Diseases, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDS), Infections, Centers For Disease Control And Prevention (CDC), Surveillance & Epidemiology
Print

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, "Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance, 2009," there are approximately 19 million new STD infections each year, which cost the U.S. healthcare system $16.4 billion annually and cost individuals even more in terms of acute and long-term health consequences.

The data are based on state and local STD case reports from a variety of private and public sources, the majority of which come from non-STD clinic settings, such as private physicians and health maintenance organizations.

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the U.S. CDCs surveillance report includes data on the three STDs that physicians are required to report to the agency  chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis  which represent only a fraction of the true burden of STDs. Some common STDs, such as human papillomavirus (HPV) and genital herpes, are not reported to CDC.

Despite the continued high burden of STDs, the latest CDC data show some signs of progress:

- Gonorrhea: The national gonorrhea rate is at the lowest level ever recorded.

- Chlamydia: Continuing increases in chlamydia diagnoses likely reflect expanded screening efforts, and not necessarily a true increase in disease burden; this means that more people are protecting their health by getting tested and being linked to treatment. This is critical, since chlamydia is one of the most widespread STDs in the United States.

- Syphilis: For the first time in five years, reported syphilis cases did not increase among women overall. Likewise, cases of congenital syphilis (transmitted from mother to infant) did not increase for the first time in four years.

Yet, there are large disparities by race and age. CDC surveillance data show much higher rates of reported STDs among some racial or ethnic minority groups than among whites. This is consistent with other data sources showing marked STD disparities in some minority populations. A range of factors contributes to these disparities, including poverty, lack of access to health care and an already high prevalence of STDs in communities of color that increases a persons risk of infection with each sexual encounter. And regardless of race or gender, data show that sexually active adolescents and young adults are at increased risk for STDs when compared to older adults. Acknowledging disparities in STD rates is one of the first steps in empowering affected communities to focus on the problem and helping the public health community direct prevention and treatment resources appropriately.

Less than half of people who should be screened receive recommended STD screening services. Undetected and untreated STDs can increase a persons risk for HIV and cause other serious health consequences, such as infertility. STD screening can help detect disease early and, when combined with treatment, is one of the most effective tools available to protect ones health and prevent the spread of STDs to others.

Untreated gonorrhea and chlamydia can result in pelvic inflammatory disease in women, a condition that can cause infertility. Each year, STDs cause at least 24,000 women in the U.S. to become infertile. Untreated syphilis can lead to serious long-term complications, including brain, cardiovascular and organ damage. Syphilis in pregnant women can also result in congenital syphilis (syphilis among infants), which can cause stillbirth, death soon after birth, and physical deformity and neurological complications in children who survive. Untreated syphilis in pregnant women results in infant death in up to 40 percent of cases. Studies suggest that people with gonorrhea, chlamydia or syphilis are at increased risk for HIV. This is especially concerning for young black men, among whom the rate of syphilis is increasing.

So I guess the sex ed is doing a bang up job then right ?  the only thing that can be done is for PARENTS to teach there kids impulse control.You know, actually be a parent. Turn off there PS2, take away there cell phone and TALK to them. As for getting medical records Except for planned parenthood and there affiliated clinics, most Dr.'s will bring parents into the fold. Planed parenthood wont because they need the money. I will shoot some more numbers your way in a sec. I dont want to overwhelm you.


----------



## chanel (Mar 8, 2011)

Great piece in the NYT.  It looks like abstinence ed is working insofar as many teens are waiting longer to have sex.  Not until marriage, but until they are in love.  This study suggests that people who have fewer partners are generally happier.



> Successful abstinence-based programs (yes, they do exist) dont necessarily make their teenage participants more likely to save themselves for marriage. But they make them more likely to save themselves for somebody, which in turn increases the odds that their adult sexual lives will be a source of joy rather than sorrow.
> 
> Their research, which looks at sexual behavior among contemporary young adults, finds a significant correlation between sexual restraint and emotional well-being, between monogamy and happiness  and between promiscuity and depression.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 8, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> So I guess the sex ed is doing a bang up job then right ?  the only thing that can be done is for PARENTS to teach there kids impulse control.You know, actually be a parent. Turn off there PS2, take away there cell phone and TALK to them. As for getting medical records Except for planned parenthood and there affiliated clinics, most Dr.'s will bring parents into the fold. Planed parenthood wont because they need the money. I will shoot some more numbers your way in a sec. I dont want to overwhelm you.



You see the difference between you and I is that I look at the evidence to draw conclusions, whereas you believe the mere act of reproducing gives you the ability to draw conclusions and then selectively pick which evidence you want to ignore and which you want to post as supporting your pre-conceived ideas. 

Take the "evidence" in your latest post.  The first is an opinion written by apparently no one, and posted to a blog.  Note how opinion is not fact.  Now let's look at actual CDC facts, as alluded to in your second article, which can be found here:
CDC - Trends in STD Surveillance, 2009 -

Did you bother to actually read the things you posted?
"Gonorrhea: The national gonorrhea rate is at the *lowest level ever recorded.*
"- Chlamydia: Continuing increases in chlamydia diagnoses *likely reflect expanded screening efforts, and not necessarily a true increase in disease burden*; this means that more people are protecting their health by getting tested and being linked to treatment. This is critical, since chlamydia is one of the most widespread STDs in the United States.
- Syphilis: For the first time in five years, reported *syphilis cases did not increase* among women overall. Likewise, cases of congenital syphilis (transmitted from mother to infant) did not increase for the first time in four years."

Your article, rehashed from the CDC, then goes on to say the horrible effects of not seeking help once an STD is acquired.  That law you dislike so much that I already proved was beneficial is about adolescents able to be treated after they have acquired such an STD to AVOID those later complications. 

There is no substitute for good parenting, but once your kid already has an STD, every scrap of evidence we has shows that they are better off being able to be freely treated for it.  

Keep something else in mind: while your ridiculous opinion article that is posted to a blog and lists no author is making all kinds of unsupported claims that directly contradict the center for disease control, even those claims have nothing to do with the laws surrounding confidentiality of adolescents, which were enacted years away from any bad statistic they use. 

In short: I've already proven that privacy for adolescents is beneficial to that age group as a whole, and such ideas are supported by every major medical organization in the country.  There is also absolutely no evidence that shows the enactment of these laws has negatively affected STD rates or increased risky sexual behavior.  This is evidence based fact.  Do you still hold to your unsupported opinion at the cost of your child's health?


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Mar 8, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess the sex ed is doing a bang up job then right ?  the only thing that can be done is for PARENTS to teach there kids impulse control.You know, actually be a parent. Turn off there PS2, take away there cell phone and TALK to them. As for getting medical records Except for planned parenthood and there affiliated clinics, most Dr.'s will bring parents into the fold. Planed parenthood wont because they need the money. I will shoot some more numbers your way in a sec. I dont want to overwhelm you.
> ...



First, they were posted to blogs as reported by the CDC. STD's are up. Googl STD among teens and you will get all you need in big letters so you get it. From 1996 to now STD's are up. Then do it state by state and you will see it is up as well, especially among African Americans who also lead in abortions. The long and short is this, Abstinence training in school- Dont work, Sexual education in school- dont work. What is a fact it this, they both work when done at by parents .And you haven't proven shit other then Planned parenthood and there affiliate clinics say that . So try harder swamp donkey.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Mar 8, 2011)

And since you dont like blogs I pulled this one off of CDC's web site-

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year&#8212; almost half of them among young people 15 to 24 years of age1.

In addition to the burden on youth, women are also severely affected. Biological factors place women at greater risk than men for the severe health consequences of STDs. The two most commonly reported infectious diseases in America &#8212; chlamydia and gonorrhea &#8212; pose a particular risk to the health of women, as both can result in infertility if left untreated. Together, these diseases were reported in almost 1.5 million Americans in 2007, but the majority of cases continue to go undiagnosed.

Both of these diseases, along with syphilis and herpes, have also been associated with increased HIV transmission, which is of particular concern among men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and African-American men and women, where the HIV burden is now greatest. Reducing the preventable and persistent toll of STDs will require expanded access to prevention, treatment, and screening services for the diverse populations now at risk.

This document summarizes 2007 national data on trends in three notifiable STDs &#8212; chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis &#8212; that are published in CDC&#8217;s report, Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance 2007. These data, which are useful for examining overall trends and trends among specific populations at risk, represent only a small proportion of the true national burden of STDs. Many cases of notifiable STDs go undiagnosed, and some common viral infections, such as human papillomavirus and genital herpes, are not reported at all.
Chlamydia: Largest Number of Cases Reported to Date, Yet Majority of Infections Still Undiagnosed

Health Consequences of Chlamydia

Chlamydia is a bacterial infection that can easily be cured with antibiotics, but usually occurs without symptoms and often goes undiagnosed. Untreated, it can cause severe health consequences for women.  Up to 40 percent of females with untreated chlamydia infections develop pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) &#8211; a condition, which can lead to such long-term complications as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain.2 Complications from chlamydia among men are relatively uncommon, but may include epididymitis and urethritis, which can cause pain, fever, and in rare cases, sterility.  In addition, studies suggest that the presence of chlamydia infection increases the risk of HIV transmission.3

Chlamydia remains the most commonly reported disease in the United States. In 2007, 1,108,374 chlamydia diagnoses were reported, up from 1,030,911 in 2006. The 2007 total represents the largest number of cases ever reported to CDC for any condition. Even so, most chlamydia cases still go undiagnosed. CDC estimates that there are approximately 2.8 million new cases of chlamydia in the United States each year1, indicating that more than half of new cases remain undiagnosed and unreported.

The national rate of reported chlamydia in 2007 was 370.2 cases per 100,000 population, an increase of 7.5 percent from 2006 (344.3). Increases in chlamydia rates are more likely a reflection of the continued expansion of screening and use of more sensitive tests, rather than an increase in the total burden of the disease in the United States.
Severe Impact on Women, Especially Young and Minority Women

Women, especially young and minority women, are hit hardest by chlamydia. Studies have found that women are most severely impacted by the long-term consequences of untreated chlamydia.
Female Chlamydia Rates, 2007. Click for a larger image.
Click for a larger image

The reported chlamydia case rate for females in 2007 was almost three times higher than for males (543.6 vs. 190.0 per 100,000 population). Much of this difference reflects the fact that females are far more likely to be screened than males. Young females 15 to 19 years of age had the highest chlamydia rate (3,004.7), followed by females 20 to 24 years of age (2,948.8). Chlamydia is common among all races and ethnic groups; however, African-American, American Indian/ Alaska Native, and Hispanic women are disproportionately affected. In 2007, black females 15 to 19 years of age had the highest chlamydia rate of any group (9,646.7), followed by black females 20 to 24 years of age (8,671.5). The rate of reported chlamydia per 100,000 black females overall (1,906.0) was almost eight times that of white females (249.3) and almost three times that of Hispanic females (753.3). The rate among American Indian/Alaska Native females was the second highest (1,158.2), while the rate among Asian/Pacific Islander females was the lowest (208.8).
Importance of Screening

Because chlamydia is most common among young women and is usually asymptomatic, CDC recommends annual chlamydia screening for all sexually active women under age 26, as well as older women with risk factors such as new or multiple sex partners.4 Data from one study in a managed care setting suggest that chlamydia screening and treatment can reduce the incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) by over 50 percent.5 Unfortunately, many sexually active young women are not being tested for chlamydia, in part reflecting a lack of awareness among some providers and limited resources for screening.6 Research has shown that simple changes in clinical procedures, such as coupling chlamydia tests with routine Pap testing, can sharply increase the proportion of women screened.7 Increased screening efforts are critical to preventing the serious health consequences of this infection, particularly infertility. While recent data suggest that chlamydia screening may be increasing, it is estimated that more than half of sexually active women under 26 were not screened within the last year.6

Reducing the impact of this disease among women will also require reducing and treating chlamydia among males. Recent studies have also shown that many young women who have been diagnosed with chlamydia may become re-infected by male partners who have not been diagnosed or treated.8, 9, 10 CDC&#8217;s 2006 STD Treatment Guidelines recommend that women be re-tested for chlamydia approximately three months after treatment, and also recommend that where possible, antibiotic therapy be delivered by heterosexual patients to their partners if other strategies for reaching and treating partners are not likely to succeed, an approach known as expedited partner therapy.4
Gonorrhea: Disease Stable but at Too High a Level

Gonorrhea is the second most commonly reported infectious disease in the United States, with 355,991 cases reported in 2007. Following a 74 percent decline in the rate of reported gonorrhea from 1975 through 1997, overall gonorrhea rates have remained relatively stable for the past decade, though the disease persists at too high a level. In 2007, the overall gonorrhea rate was 118.9 cases per 100,000 population, and rates were slightly higher among women (123.5) than among men (113.7). Like chlamydia, gonorrhea is substantially under-diagnosed and under-reported, and approximately twice as many new infections are estimated to occur each year as are reported.1
United States of Concern
Gonorrhea Rate, 1941-2007. Click for a larger image.
Click for a larger image

As in previous years, in 2007 the South had the highest gonorrhea rate among the four regions of the country (156 cases per 100,000 population).  Rates, while high in the South, have remained fairly stable.

While the impact is greatest in the South, public health officials have also been concerned in recent years about increases in gonorrhea rates in the West, with the reported rate of gonorrhea rising 17.1 percent between 2003 and 2007. Though the gonorrhea rate decreased slightly in the West from 2006 to 2007 (from 81.5 to 74.0 per 100,000 population), it is too early to determine if this indicates a reversal in the trend. 

Between 2003 and 2007, the rate in the Northeast declined 15.1 percent (from 90.8 to 77.1) and the rate in the Midwest showed minimal change (from 135.8 in 2003 to 139.3 in 2007).
Additional Treatment Options Needed

Health Consequences of Gonorrhea

While gonorrhea is easily cured, untreated cases can lead to serious health problems similar to those caused by chlamydia. Among women, gonorrhea is a major cause of PID, which can lead to chronic pelvic pain, ectopic pregnancy, and infertility. In men, untreated gonorrhea can cause epididymitis, a painful infection in the tissue surrounding the testicles that can result in sterility. In addition, studies suggest that the presence of gonorrhea infection increases the likelihood of HIV transmission.3

Drug resistance is an important concern in the treatment and prevention of gonorrhea.11 CDC monitors trends in gonorrhea drug resistance through the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP), which tests gonorrhea samples (isolates) from the first 25 men with urethral gonorrhea attending STD clinics each month in sentinel clinics across the United States (30 STD clinics and five regional labs participated in GISP in 2007).12

In April 2007, based on data showing widespread drug resistance to fluoroquinolones, a leading class of antibiotics used to treat gonorrhea, CDC revised its gonorrhea treatment guidelines, no longer recommending that this class of antibiotics be used to treat gonorrhea in the United States.13

With the loss of fluoroquinolones, recommended gonorrhea treatments are limited to a single class of antibiotics, cephalosporins. Although recent data show no indication of cephalosporin resistance in the United States, continued monitoring for emerging resistance is critical, and accelerated research into new treatments are needed to continue the nation&#8217;s progress in controlling this common sexually transmitted disease.
Syphilis: Cases Continue to Increase

The rate of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis &#8212; the most infectious stages of the disease &#8212; decreased throughout the 1990s, and in 2000 reached an all-time low. However, over the past seven years, the syphilis rate in the United States has been increasing. Between 2006 and 2007, the national P&S syphilis rate increased 15.2 percent, from 3.3 to 3.8 cases per 100,000 population, and the number of cases increased from 9,756 to 11,466.
Increases Among Men Who Have Sex with Men Continue 
Primary and Secondary Syphilis Rates by Gender, 1981-2007. Click for a larger image.
Click for a larger image

The rate of P&S syphilis among men increased 17.9 percent in 2007 (from 5.6 per 100,000 in 2006 to 6.6 per 100,000 in 2007) . Since 2005, data reported to CDC has included gender of partners for persons with syphilis and in 2007, 65 percent of all P&S syphilis cases were among MSM, based on data from 44 states and the District of Columbia.  Additionally, the disparity between male and female case rates has grown consistently. The P&S syphilis rate among males is now six times the rate among females, whereas the rates were almost equivalent a decade ago , suggesting that increases in men have largely been among men who sex with men.
Concerning Increases among Women and Infants

P&S syphilis rates remained substantially lower among females than males, though overall rates have increased each year among females since 2004, following more than a decade of declines. In 2007, the syphilis rate for females increased 10 percent (from 1.0 per 100,000 population in 2006 to 1.1 in 2007). This increase has occurred largely among black females, in whom rates rose 14.3 percent (from 4.9 in 2006 to 5.6 in 2007).

Additionally, the rate of congenital syphilis (i.e., transmission from mother to infant) increased for the second year in a row (from 9.3 per 100,000 live births in 2006 to 10.5 in 2007). Increases in congenital syphilis have historically followed increases among women.
Importance of Screening and Treatment
Health Consequences of Syphilis

Syphilis, a genital ulcerative disease, is highly infectious, but easily curable in its early (primary and secondary) stages. If untreated, it can lead to serious long-term complications, including brain, cardiovascular, and organ damage, and even death. Untreated syphilis in pregnant women can also result in congenital syphilis (syphilis among infants), which can cause stillbirth, death soon after birth, and physical deformity and neurological complications in children who survive. Syphilis, like many other STDs, facilitates the spread of HIV by increasing the likelihood of transmission of the virus.14

CDC recommends that sexually active MSM be tested for syphilis, as well as chlamydia, gonorrhea, and HIV at least annually. To combat the increases in syphilis among MSM during the last decade, CDC has partnered with health departments and community groups in the cities hardest hit to implement new strategies for this population. These approaches range from new Internet-based strategies for notifying sexual partners to education campaigns targeted to high-risk populations and health care providers. As CDC continues to evaluate and work to replicate the most effective approaches to reducing this burden, it is clear that regular screening of MSM, especially HIV-positive MSM, remains one of the most critical steps toward preventing the spread of syphilis.

CDC also recommends that all pregnant women be screened for syphilis at the first prenatal visit.  This is critical for protecting infants from the serious complications associated with congenital syphilis.
Racial Disparities Persist Across All Reportable STDs

Data in CDC&#8217;s 2007 STD surveillance report indicate persistent racial disparities in STD rates, with African Americans bearing a particularly heavy burden. Blacks represent only 12 percent of the total U.S. population, but made up about 70 percent of gonorrhea cases and almost half of all chlamydia and syphilis cases in 2007(48% and 46%, respectively).  Similarly, disparities among Hispanics, though less severe, also exist for chlamydia.  While Hispanics account for 15 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 19 percent of all reported chlamydia cases. 

These disparities may be, in part, because racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to seek care in public health clinics that report STDs more completely than private providers. However, this reporting bias does not fully explain these differences. Socioeconomic barriers to quality healthcare and STD prevention and treatment services have likely contributed to a higher prevalence and incidence of STDs among racial and ethnic minorities. Ensuring that minority communities have access to prevention, screening, treatment and partner services needed to improve health is critical to addressing these disparities.
Chlamydia

In 2007, the rate of chlamydia among blacks was more than eight times higher than the rate among whites (1,398.7 vs. 162.3 per 100,000 population). Additionally, the rates among American Indians/Alaska Natives (732.3) and Hispanics (473.2), were approximately five times and three times higher than whites, respectively.  The rate among Asians/Pacific Islanders was 139.5 per 100,000 population.  
Gonorrhea

Racial disparities in gonorrhea rates are the most severe of all reportable STDs. The gonorrhea rate among blacks was 19 times greater than that of whites in 2007 (662.9 vs. 34.7 per 100,000 population). In 2007, there were declines in gonorrhea rates among all racial and ethnic groups, except blacks, among whom the gonorrhea rate increased by 1.8 percent between 2006 and 2007.  In 2007, American Indians/Alaska Natives had the second-highest gonorrhea rate (107.1), followed by Hispanics (69.2), whites (34.7), and Asians/Pacific Islanders (18.8).
Syphilis

In 2007, the syphilis rate among blacks was seven times higher than that of whites (14.0 per 100,000 population as compared with 2.0).  While this represents a substantial decline from 1999, when the rate among blacks was 29 times greater than among whites, significant disparities remain.

In 2007, the P&S syphilis rate among blacks increased for the fourth consecutive year, following more than a decade of declines. Between 2006 and 2007, the rate among blacks increased 25 percent (from 11.2 to 14.0 per 100,000 population), with the largest increase among black males (18.1 to 23.2, an increase of 28.2 percent). By comparison, the rate among black females increased 14.3 percent (4.9 to 5.6). In 2007, the rate of P&S syphilis in black females was 14 times higher than that of white females (5.6 as compared with 0.4 cases per 100,000).

Syphilis rates increased for all races and ethnicities in 2007, with the exception of Asians/Pacific Islanders, among whom the rate remained stable.  The syphilis rate among Hispanics and American Indians/Alaska Natives increased 22.9 percent and 6.3 percent respectively between 2006 and 2007.
Intensified Efforts Needed to Address Significant Gaps in STD Prevention

To reduce the toll of STDs and protect the health of millions of Americans, expanded prevention efforts are urgently needed. In addition to the threat of infertility, increased risk of HIV acquisition and other health risks, STDs have a substantial economic impact. CDC estimates STDs cost the U.S. healthcare system as much as $15.3 billion annually in 2007 dollars.1, 15

CDC supports a comprehensive approach to STD prevention that includes expanded screening, treatment, and behavioral interventions, with a focus on reducing racial disparities.

In addition to recommending annual chlamydia screening for all sexually active women under 26 years of age, CDC also supports U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation to screen high-risk, sexually active women for gonorrhea.

To further progress against chlamydia, CDC, the Partnership for Prevention and eight other national  organizations, established the National Chlamydia Coalition. The partnership is comprised of non-profit organizations, health care professional associations, advocacy groups, health insurers, and government representatives working together to reduce the rates of chlamydia and its harmful effects among sexually active adolescent and young adults, to raise awareness of the importance of chlamydia screening to sexual health, and to help improve adherence to recommended screening guidelines.

Eliminating syphilis as a health threat in the United States will also require an increased commitment to education, testing, and treatment in all populations affected. While the disease was on the verge of elimination in the late 1990s, shifts in disease transmission have since resulted in substantial new prevention challenges. While elimination efforts were originally targeted to heterosexuals in the geographic areas where syphilis was concentrated, increases in syphilis among MSM across the country have since required that limited resources be shifted to combat two distinct syphilis epidemics. As a result, declines in reported syphilis cases in some areas and populations continue to be offset by syphilis increases in others. Ultimately, successful elimination of this disease will require intensified efforts at the federal, state, and local levels to reach the diverse and expanded populations now at risk.
References

1 Weinstock H, et al. Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2004;36(1):6-10.

2 Hillis SD and Wasserheit JN. Screening for Chlamydia &#8212; A Key to the prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease. New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334(21):1399-1401.

3 Fleming DT and Wasserheit JN. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: the contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sexually Transmitted Infections 1999;75:3-17.

4 CDC. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2006;55(RR-11).

5 Scholes D et al. Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection.External Web Site Icon New England Journal of Medicine 1996;334(21):1362-1366.

6 National Committee for Quality AssuranceExternal Web Site Icon. The State of Health Care Quality 2008. Washington, D.C., 2008.

7 Burstein G et al. Chlamydia screening in a health plan before and after a national performance measure introduction. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005;106(2):327-334.

8 Whittington et al. Determinants of persistent and recurrent chlamydia trachomatis infection in young women: results of a multicenter cohort study. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2001;28(2):117-123.

9 Reitmeijer CA et al. Incidence and repeat infection rates of chlamydia trachomatis among male and female patients in an STD clinic: implications for screening and rescreening.  Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2002; 29(2):65-72.

10 Anschuetz et al. Determining risk markers for gonorrhea and chlamydial infection and reinfection among adolescents in public high schools.  Sexually Transmitted Diseases 2009;36(1):4-8.

11 CDC. Increases in fluoroquinolone-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae among men who have sex with men &#8212; United States, 2003, and revised recommendations for gonorrhea treatment, 2004. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2004;53(16):335-338.

12 CDC. Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project.

13 CDC. Update to CDC&#8217;s Sexually Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines, 2006: Fluoroquinolones No Longer Recommended for Treatment of Gonococcal Infections. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2007;56(14):332-336.

14 CDC. HIV prevention through early detection and treatment of other sexually transmitted diseases &#8212; United States recommendations of the Advisory Committee for HIV and STD Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1998; 47(RR-12):1-24.

15  Chesson HW, et al. The estimated direct medical cost of sexually transmitted diseases among American youth, 2000. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 2004, 36(1): 11-19.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm

And that was a nice edit in your quote .


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 8, 2011)

Momanohedhunter said:


> First, they were posted to blogs as reported by the CDC. STD's are up. Googl STD among teens and you will get all you need in big letters so you get it. From 1996 to now STD's are up. Then do it state by state and you will see it is up as well, especially among African Americans who also lead in abortions. The long and short is this, Abstinence training in school- Dont work, Sexual education in school- dont work. What is a fact it this, they both work when done at by parents .And you haven't proven shit other then Planned parenthood and there affiliate clinics say that . So try harder swamp donkey.



More fantastic unsupported guesses for me to tear apart, I see.  So you continue to claim things are increasing since 1996 despite the CDC report from 2009 that you yourself posted stated the exact opposite.  In the next post, you went on to copy and paste old information from the CDC from previous reports, while making no points.

So in summary: you are drawing completely unrelated conclusions regarding the ineffectiveness of sex ed in public schools because you cherry picked outdated articles from the CDC instead of using the most recent information available.  You then used this irrelevant data to claim that an unrelated law is the reason that STDs are increasing, despite the data not showing it.  

Perhaps a visual will help your understanding:





STD statistics for the USA

This is a graph of the CDC numbers over time.  As you will see, it corresponds with the latest conclusions produced by the CDC regarding those three STDs, as mentioned in my previous post: gonorrhea is the lowest it has ever been recorded, chlamydia numbers are increasing due to better screening methods although the disease itself is not, and syphilis has not really changed.  Note the time course of that graph.  Note how the laws that defend adolescent privacy were enacted in early 2000 and there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE IN THE TRENDS AT THAT TIME.  

If you were right, and these laws increase STDs, we would see massive spikes across the board.  Not a single trend would continue in the same direction.  Everything would take a sharp turn upward.  But we don't see that at all.  As I've said before, increased medical access has been proven to not increase risky behavior.  All it does is increase treatment of affected individuals.  

So once again: you're wrong.  The CDC says you're wrong.  The American Medical Association, the largest representation of doctors in the country, says you're wrong.  The American Academy of Pediatrics says you're wrong.  Yet somehow, in your ignorance and insignificant unsupported worldview, you think you are in a better position to determine policy than the country's brightest scientists and most experienced doctors.  

MEANWHILE, it has been proven across every country and every study in this country that sex education is an effective method of decreasing unwanted pregnancy and STD transmissions.  The data also shows that students who learn sex ed are not more likely to increase risky behaviors.  This is not opinion.  This is fact based on scientific analysis of reliable verifiable data.  I base my ideas on such facts.  You debase your ideas on opinions you thought up that are completely unsupported.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Mar 10, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Momanohedhunter said:
> 
> 
> > First, they were posted to blogs as reported by the CDC. STD's are up. Googl STD among teens and you will get all you need in big letters so you get it. From 1996 to now STD's are up. Then do it state by state and you will see it is up as well, especially among African Americans who also lead in abortions. The long and short is this, Abstinence training in school- Dont work, Sexual education in school- dont work. What is a fact it this, they both work when done at by parents .And you haven't proven shit other then Planned parenthood and there affiliate clinics say that . So try harder swamp donkey.
> ...



 Any one who wants can hit the link and see for them selves sex ed does not work, and only good parenting will. So google faster little swamp donkey, google faster !


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Mar 10, 2011)

And one more time, as was posted from the CDC's web site and not a blog like your graph there. And CDC does not have results for 2011 on there web site yet. You also are wrong about privacy and teens at the Dr's office. No practice that wants to stay in business would go behind a parents back, an they sure as hell are not going to let a minor with no insurance just walk in and do there thing. The health department and even planned parenthood will call a parent and report that an issue was addressed concerning the child. They are only excused from disclosing what the issue was. That is how it is here and varies state to state .


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Mar 10, 2011)

Oh I see.  So all of the medical understanding of this world published in reputable verifiable scientific journals is all wrong because you say so.  Amazing!  

Nevertheless, doctors practices across the country respect adolescent privacy. 

So despite the fact that all data shows that practices that allow access to teenagers is beneficial to them, you still don't want them to have it.  Good thing they can still seek out care without your approval and you wouldn't even know it!


----------

