Sexually Transmitted Diseases: The Epidemic
Depot
The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members
The ModFather Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7956Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Each year, 1/4 teens contracts an STD</div> It's been in the news a lot of late: the ever-increasing problem of STDs. One in two sexually active persons will contact an STD by age 25 - that's a pretty high risk I'd say. Some of you will scoff at this, but it's certainly no laughing matter. From the <a href='http://www.ashastd.org/stdfaqs/statistics.html' target='_blank'>American Social Health Association's website</a> are some interesting statistics:<ul><li>More than half of all people will have an STD at some point in their lifetime. </li><li>The estimated total number of people living in the US with a viral STD is over 65 million. Every year, there are approximately 15 million new cases of STDs, some of which are curable. </li><li>More than $8 billion is spent each year to diagnose and treat STDs and their complications. This figure does not include HIV. </li><li>In a national survey of US physicians, less than one-third routinely screened patients for STDs.</li><li>Less than half of adults ages 18 to 44 have ever been tested for an STD other than HIV/AIDS. </li><li>Each year, one in four teens contracts an STD.</li><li>One in two sexually active persons will contact an STD by age 25</li><li>About half of all new STDs in 2000 occurred among youth ages 15 to 24. The total estimated costs of these nine million new cases of these STDs was $6.5 billion, with HIV and human papillomavirus (HPV) accounting for 90% of the total burden.</li><li>Of the STDs that are diagnosed, only some (gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, hepatitis A and B) are required to be reported to state health departments and the CDC.</li><li>One out of 20 people in the United States will get infected with hepatitis B (HBV) some time during their lives. Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV .</li><li>Approximately half of HBV infections are transmitted sexually. HBV is linked to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis and liver cancer.</li><li>Hepatitis A and hepatitis B are the only two vaccine-preventable STDs. </li><li>It is estimated that as many as one in four Americans have genital herpes , a lifelong (but manageable) infection, yet up to 90 percent of those with herpes are unaware they have it. With more than 50 million adults in the US with genital herpes and up to 1.6 million new infections each year, some estimates suggest that by 2025 up to 40% of all men and half of all women could be infected.</li><li>Over 6 million people acquire HPV each year, and by age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. Most people with HPV do not develop symptoms. Some researchers believe that HPV infections may self-resolve and may not be lifelong like herpes.</li><li>Cervical cancer in women, while preventable through regular Paps, is linked to high-risk types of HPV .</li><li>The CDC recommends that sexually active females 25 and under should be screened at least once a year for chlamydia, even if no symptoms are present. About two-thirds of young females believe doctors routinely screen teens for chlamydia. However, in 2003 only 30% of women 25 and under with commercial health care plans and 45% in Medicaid plans were screened for chlamydia.</li><li>At least 15 percent of all American women who are infertile can attribute it to tubal damage caused by pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) , the result of an untreated STD. Consistent condom use protects against recurrent PID and related complications: significantly, women who reported regular use of condoms in one study were 60 percent less likely to become infertile.</li><li>Consistent condom use provides substantial protection against the acquisition of many STDs, including statistically significant protection against HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, and syphilis. </li><li>Some studies show that, for those who already have a clinically apparent genital HPV infection, using condoms promotes the regression of HPV lesions in both women and men.</li></ul>How can we turn this trend around? Should sex education be mandatory in school? Are parents to blame for this, or is it simply society's fault? Perhaps some sort of screening is in order?
<b>Please discuss in a mature manner. </b>Marik gave me the ok on this and Sirus will be keeping a close eye. I won't hesitate to use the "R" button if you go "x" rated or attempt to derail this, so keep it clean, and <b>PLEASE</b> stay on topic.
<span style='color:red'>Sirus: I'm going to be particularly strict and unpermissive of rule breaking in this thread. Keep your replies relevant, clean, and <u>serious</u>. Anything that doesn't qualify within the above three will be quickly edited.</span>
<b>Please discuss in a mature manner. </b>Marik gave me the ok on this and Sirus will be keeping a close eye. I won't hesitate to use the "R" button if you go "x" rated or attempt to derail this, so keep it clean, and <b>PLEASE</b> stay on topic.
<span style='color:red'>Sirus: I'm going to be particularly strict and unpermissive of rule breaking in this thread. Keep your replies relevant, clean, and <u>serious</u>. Anything that doesn't qualify within the above three will be quickly edited.</span>
Comments
<span style='color:red'>Sirus: Please try and keep the discussion serious <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--></span>
They can protect themselves, they simply won't (in most cases).
Is it really that hard to protect yourself? Aparently...
Before I became sexually active in my current relationship, my girlfriend and I decided that I would go get tested for STDs as a precaution because I had had sex with my previous girlfriend. I didn't have reason to worry, I had never had any symptoms of anything, and my previous girlfriend had been a virgin (as had I) prior to dating me.
I went to planned parenthood to get tested for everything.
First off, without symptoms they only test you for bacterial infections (I think, that's how they made the division. At any rate, it wasn't everything.) You have to actually notice something wrong in order for them to perform the rest of the tests. Without being too vulgar, the tests that I got required them to take a urine sample and draw two vials of blood. If I had gotten the rest of the tests they would have had to stick a Qtip up my ****. My friend had that done cause he had picked up something, and he lost his sex drive for a couple of months. Penises were not meant to have Qtips shoved up them.
Secondly, to get tested for HIV they draw more blood, the test takes a month or so (maybe 3 weeks. Something like that) and you have to be physically present to receive the results. They won't give them to you over the phone. With the results of the rest of the tests, they don't even give them to you, they just make sure to contact you if you are actually infected with something.
Even the small subset of tests that I took, since I wasn't in any way monetarily disadvantaged, cost around $180. The other tests just get more expensive.
I think if people really want this stuff cracked down on, at the very least these tests should be heavily subsidized by the government. They should be airing public information ads left and right. The only way I can think of that you are going to get someone to volunteer to have a Qtip shoved up their **** is if they are either really responsible, or really scared.
[conspiracytheory]The CIA should be complemented for making such effective population control diseases. Not only do they scare people from reproduction, they kill them too! And they've got Africa by the balls with Ebola and AIDS.[/conspiracytheory]
If you want some quality entertainment, or if you really want to believe a bunch of conspiracy theories, check out the book <i>Behold A Pale Horse</i>.
Anyways, this really, <i>really</i> sucks. Serious relationships are now a necessity.
I'm waitin' for marriage (as my partner will be) though, so... I'm not worried, haha. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
As to the high cost of getting a complete battery of tests run, your local Public Health Clinic would be the place to go if you were strapped for cash.
I think the message here is prevention, either by practicing abstinance or using protection. A monogomous relationship would be healthy also...
As to the high cost of getting a complete battery of tests run, your local Public Health Clinic would be the place to go if you were strapped for cash. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Planned Parenthood offers significant discounts also if you show evidence of low income (tax return, etc.) I just had to pay through the nose cause I'm still living on my mom's income mostly.
The one bug with that is it often gets extended to a series of monogamous sexual relationships by people that miss the point. True monogamy presupposes that a couple can actually stay together indefinitely, or at least that sexual activity is deferred until that point. Unfortunately we're only human, and testing seems to be far rarer than it should be.
Quick collection of facts and references <a href='http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/networks.html' target='_blank'>here</a> for anyone light on reading material.
The one bug with that is it often gets extended to a series of monogamous sexual relationships by people that miss the point. True monogamy presupposes that a couple can actually stay together indefinitely, or at least that sexual activity is deferred until that point. Unfortunately we're only human, and testing seems to be far rarer than it should be.
Quick collection of facts and references <a href='http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/networks.html' target='_blank'>here</a> for anyone light on reading material. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, society has twisted marriage. People think, "If we love each other, truly, we won't get tempted or have hard times." I've heard that alot and it is evidenced by high divorce AND marriage rates. Get married now and if it doesn't appear to work out... divorce is quick and painless.
Love is about a "feeling", sure. But it's also about commitment. And WILLING to love someone, no matter what. For better or for worse. They should put that last bit in the ceremony, actually... it sounds pretty catchy, eh? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
(just my 2 cents)
~ DarkATi
The main, and best, way to fight STDs is to encourage the use of condoms. Condoms are not effective against all STDs like herpes, which can be found on the testes or outer **** avoiding the condom. In general however, condoms are the best protection against STDs as they will stop the great majority of them (which usually require contact of fluids, such as those organisms that colonise the urogenital tract). This is one of the most frustrating aspects around the "abstinence only campaigns", who often spread around distortions of disease processes or sometimes just outright lie about things like the effectiveness of condoms<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>2</span>.
For example:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Conversely, sex education programmes were comprehensive, involved open discussion, and included information about contraception, he said. "<b>Abstinence only programmes don’t refer to contraception except for failure rates</b>," Dr Pruitt added<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>1</span>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which of course gives an extremely negative impression and generally does more harm than good (as it only seems to change rates of sexual intercourse <b>with</b> a condom and nothing much else). I'm still wondering why they manage to get state funding, despite its repeated and documented dismal failure to actually do anything.
The only way to make good headway is to encourage schools to have <b>clear, accurate information that is easily understood, and to discourage sexual intercourse without the use of protection such as a condom</b>. At least this will mean teens can make (at the very least) an informed decision and hopefully will use protection responsibly (which will at least prevent some disease).
1. Tanne JH. Abstinence only programmes do not change sexual behaviour, Texas study shows. BMJ. 2005 Feb 12;330(7487):326
2. Perrin KK, DeJoy SB. Abstinence-only education: how we got here and where we're going. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2003;24(3-4):445-59.
Oh if anyone is curious, I teach sexual education at my old school when I go back for a holiday break from University so I have some experience in this area.
"<i>A recent study of the sexual relationships among high schoolers indicates the potential for the devastating spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) within that segment of the population.
The study, titled "Chains of Affection: The Structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks," was published in the July 2004 issue of American Journal of Sociology. It was based on interviews conducted with 832 students from a typical Midwestern high school, given the fictional name "Jefferson City High."
According to co-researcher Peter S. Bearman of Columbia University, students were asked to name individuals with whom they had had a romantic, sexual relationship in the past 18 months. (This was defined as a relationship in which a teen said they had special feelings of affection for the sexual partner -- in what generally would be considered a "dating" relationship, rather than merely "hooking up" for casual sex.)
The results were fairly stunning, providing a "spanning tree" model of the relationship network at Jefferson City High. (See graphic below.) Out of 832 interviewees, 573 students had been involved in at least one "romantic and sexual relationship," with 288 inside the network</i>"
(Sorry for the large image, it was this, or one much smaller and harder to see/read)
<img src='http://www.agapepress.org/images/teensexmodel_big.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
I'd like to everyone to keep one thing in mind when viewing the chart. Although they 're connected, that doesn't mean that a disease could/was transferred to a person on the opposite end of the network. Keep in mind that <b>the time of sex greatly influences the relatedness in terms of STD as well, something the chart does not take in to account.</b>
<a href='http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/networks.html' target='_blank'>What are sexual networks?</a>
Rather long read (PDF Format) Original case study:
<a href='http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/people/faculty_fellows/bearman/chains.pdf' target='_blank'>Chains of Affection :The Structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks</a>
STDs are just like any other disease; prevention is better than the cure, not to mention cheaper and less painful. Education is thus key to combatting them. Unfortunatly, the best ways to combat STDs happen to be contraceptives as well, which raises the religious/ethical dilema. That's a whole other debate.
I'm waitin' for marriage (as my partner will be) though, so... I'm not worried, haha. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man. If I could get away with saying things like that and not being called a dork, then I'd be the same way. Understand that I am not calling you a dork in any way, rather, I wish that people down in south Arlington were as clean cut as folks from your side of Dallas/Fort Worth. (Where was it again? Plano?)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even over 18ish months, I would expect clusters of highly connected nodes rather than a few high-order nodes that tend not to share partners. Especially given that only one member of a relationship needed to claim it existed for it to have been included. Given one of the conclusions of the paper being a theory to support the lack of short cycles, something smells funny.
A more realistic network (at least based on the four high schools I have been involved with) would have many "bridging" connections, providing more paths between two connected nodes. Just the lack of cliques makes the results look very questionable. Beyond the completely different graph (and much lower drug use) at "Jefferson", that could have been my high school.
On the other side, adding the time component means that the possible spread of an infection is much smaller than it would intuitively appear from either graph, because the links tend to "move" over time. For something to actually spread down a chain would required many overlapping, ordered or recurring relationships.
Someone needs to set up an anonymous website to do a sexual six degrees of separation. And thinking of small world syndrome, I find it entertaining that we randomly used the same sexual networks link...
[re-edit: ah the hazards, the one useful part of the message was out of bounds]
Like someone said earlier in the thread... prevention is easier then the cure.
From a medical perspective, maybe.
The one bug with that is it often gets extended to a series of monogamous sexual relationships by people that miss the point. True monogamy presupposes that a couple can actually stay together indefinitely, or at least that sexual activity is deferred until that point. Unfortunately we're only human, and testing seems to be far rarer than it should be.
Quick collection of facts and references <a href='http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/networks.html' target='_blank'>here</a> for anyone light on reading material. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good reference minsk. Technically speaking I was referring to "exclusively monogamous".
Personally, for those that are claiming condoms decrease the sensitivity, it is more of a cop-out on their part for being lazy and not wanting to spend a little extra money to protect themselves and their partners. If you truly did care for the person you are enjoying the intimate pleasures with, you would take the time to make sure both of you were protected, from either STDs or pregnancy, either one.
Condoms don't really make much difference with just casual sex. BUT condoms do really decrease the sensitivity, but of course I choose safety above pleasure. It doesn't matter how thin the condom is when your not circumsized it still takes away lots of sensitivity I'll refrain from getting more detailed in this, also there are other reasons why ultra thin condoms still take away sensitivity.
Don't get me wrong, I always make sure both are well protected against both disease and pregnancy. Also the not as sensitive issue is also mostly used as a cop-out but I just wanted to defend why I don't like condoms.
<span style='color:red'>Sirus:A little too much information there. Due to the nature of the discussion, it is going to be very mature, but try and word things as safely as possible. And you don't necessarily need to describe things quite so well. Most have experience in this realm, and all have an imagination <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> </span>
And incidentally:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Natural membrane condoms (sheepskin or lambskin condoms) are not recommended for protection against STIs since certain bacteria and viruses can pass through the small pores in the material.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
from <a href='http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/epiu-aepi/std-mts/condom_e.html' target='_blank'>here.</a>
As does walmart, but their website doesnt' show it, so does lewis drug, Hy-Vee, and countless others. Unless you are in a really small town (under 10K) you can find them in any store, some gas stations even carry them, although not usually in XL.
From your same site Moul...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The latex condom reduces the risk of most STIs including HIV and helps to protect against unintended pregnancy. Available research on condom effectiveness indicates that the latex male condom is highly effective in preventing HIV transmission in both men and women who have vaginal intercourse.
<b>
Polyurethane male condom is similar to the latex condom and protects against pregnancy and STIs. The polyurethane condom can be used by people who are allergic to latex.
</b>
Natural membrane condoms (sheepskin or lambskin condoms) are not recommended for protection against STIs since certain bacteria and viruses can pass through the small pores in the material.
<b>
Female condoms are available without a prescription where male condoms are sold. In Canada, the female condom is a strong, soft, clear sheath made of polyurethane. It is placed inside the **** before sex and protects against pregnancy and STI (including HIV). </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no reason you should not use some form of the above. I can say for example the female one works quite well, and isn't uncomfortable for either partner.
Not using one is a very lazy way to almost completely ensure the transmissions of STI/STDs.
Unless there is some study I am not aware of, condoms do not decrease sensitivity enough to even warrant notice of it. Of course not all men are built the same in that area so I would guess that the larger then male is the more he may notice it.
I'm waitin' for marriage (as my partner will be) though, so... I'm not worried, haha. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man. If I could get away with saying things like that and not being called a dork, then I'd be the same way. Understand that I am not calling you a dork in any way, rather, I wish that people down in south Arlington were as clean cut as folks from your side of Dallas/Fort Worth. (Where was it again? Plano?) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm from Cedar Hill, just a little south of Dallas. It's no easier here than it is there, I'm sure. As the Hebrew Proverb goes, "The wise in heart shall be called prudent." - that puts a new perspective on the word, "prude" for me, anyway. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi
Not using one is a very lazy way to almost completely ensure the transmissions of STI/STDs.
Unless there is some study I am not aware of, condoms do not decrease sensitivity enough to even warrant notice of it. Of course not all men are built the same in that area so I would guess that the larger then male is the more he may notice it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have not tried female condoms, that may be an option. I don't think polyurethane condoms are intended to preserve any more sensation than latex condoms, and I'm not allergic to latex.
I don't think this is the type of thing that would be in a scientific study. It kinda falls in the "No ****" category. New study! People have trouble picking their noses with fuzzy mittens on!
If I was having casual sex I'd be using them, but since I'm not, they really aren't worth it.
Have you ever seen the Seinfeld episode where George "lost it" because he "couldn't get the damn package open in time"? The pressure, he says, is just to much, expecting the male to rip open this (difficult to open) foil package and THEN put the condom on BEFORE he loses his erection. As funny as this whole scene was, it's actually very accurate. A little preparation beforehand may help .... ... .. .
Have you ever seen the Seinfeld episode where George "lost it" because he "couldn't get the damn package open in time"? The pressure, he says, is just to much, expecting the male to rip open this (difficult to open) foil package and THEN put the condom on BEFORE he loses his erection. As funny as this whole scene was, it's actually very accurate. A little preparation beforehand may help .... ... .. . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've had situations where it prolonged it indefinitely, to the point that we just gave up . . .
I read somewhere a really good solution to the second problem. Have the woman put it on for you, or as it was originally put "incorporate putting on the condom as part of sex play." Otherwise, I agree, it can really kill the mood.
Ye i've seen that episode, very funny and also true.