There is no better way to illustrate that a lesson at school cannot counter constant pressure everywhere else; there is no way Mrs. Krabapple's advice is more attractive than the copy of Cosmo in the supermarket checkout line, advising us all, "50 Ways to Make Your Man Want You!"

You might as well be telling thugs that "acting white" is the way out of a life of poverty and crime.

More recent stories put the number much lower, one from the Wash Post has the state health department putting the number of cases at 8 total in the county.

As for the abstinence only, it works fine, but depends highly on the people involved. Since teenagers have the willpower of a piece of wet toilet paper, an abstinence only program needs to be supplemented with more "scientific" information like the use of condoms and other birth control methods. But if it was a "condoms only" program and the kids didn't use them, wouldn't they have the same potential for problems?

Reports of this 'epidemic' apparently vastly overblown.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/08/texas_officials_deny_reports_of_chlamydia_epidemic_at_abstinence_only_high_school/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/chlamydia-outbreak-west-texas-high-school-6240944.php

Believe only half of what you see, and none of what you hear. Especially when what you hear appeals to your own opinions. I don't necessarily believe all of the 'Salon'/SA News-Express reporting either. As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. But at least they went fact-checking.

llater,

llamas

from 'da web:

"What factors might put a person at risk for chlamydia?

The most important thing is having sex without using a condom. The more sex partners you have, the more likely it is that you're going to come into contact with chlamydia. And what we call concurrent partnerships, where you're having sex with someone who's also having sex with other people."

Is it an epidemic when it's self-inflicted within a small group of the general population?

Those having sexual relations w/multiple partners w/o regard for any protection at all is a different "control group" from those having sexual relations w/in a relationship yet trying to prevent pregnancy.

Plus, it's a pretty damn isolated school where the kids don't know about the use of condoms simply because the school doesn't tell 'em they exist.

Chlamydia is highly infectious, and can occur on other parts of the body besides your sex organs.

A public health nurse told me, the worst case she ever saw was in a man's eyes,

A condom offers almost no protection at all, as with herpes.

There is no better way to illustrate that a lesson at school cannot counter constant pressure everywhere else; there is no way Mrs. Krabapple's advice is more attractive than the copy of Cosmo in the supermarket checkout line, advising us all, "50 Ways to Make Your Man Want You!"

Posted by: Radwaste at May 11, 2015 2:05 AM

Exactly. What I find especially appalling is that so many parents don't mind paying, with taxpayer money and/or money out of their own pockets, MILLIONS of dollars for abstinence "education." I mean, if parents can't convince their own kids to abstain, what in the world makes them think a teacher will do any better?! Especially with the negative evidence revealed by the media again and again? (I can't even remember the last time I heard any conservative claim that abstinence ed delays sex by more than 18 months or fewer - I imagine they don't like to admit that the kids don't actually wait until marriage.)

Not to mention that, as liberal Wendy Kaminer pointed out in "True Love Waits," the unspoken message is "abstain until marriage or death, whichever comes first." Who takes that seriously? Especially in an age where there are multiple reasons NOT to marry before at least age 25? Assuming you can find someone who wants to marry you to begin with?

At the same time, though, given the following info from one source -

"Because chlamydia often occurs without symptoms, people who are infected may unknowingly infect their sex partners. Many doctors recommend that all persons who have more than one sex partner should be tested for chlamydia regularly, even in the absence of symptoms."

- I do think all teachers need to emphasize that STDs are a perfectly good reason not to have sex on the third date and that that should not have to be spelled out to one's date.

One big factor in the failure of the abstinence only theory is that, as we used to say back in the day, "Most males of any age have a short circuit between their dick and their head."

I thought that was the point of abstinence only programs. You have the 'you must have a sex education program' people and you have the 'I don't wan't sex education in school' people. So by having a completely ineffectual program you can satisfy both constituents.

Keep making fun of the program but is there an effectual program anywhere?

Based on this old? study you can find stas proving either POV.

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3006798.html

It still comes down to an individual choice that is more dependent on the "passion of the moment" than anything else.

Too delicious to give up, especially being in Texas, and all.
Too bad it's false.

You can't tell me those kids-not a one of them-didn't now what a condom was, or how to google it's usage.

This is more a warning story about small-town incestuous relationships (there's probably a better term out there, but closed groups where everyone has dated everyone) than it is about abstinence education. If those girls and boys had more of a pool of partners to choose from, one persons chlamydia wouldn't've become everyones chlamydia. Chlamydia is transmitted via body fluids. If you get those fluids places, the chlamydia will grow there. Whether you get it directly, or by rubbing something with contaminated hands. But since the most common and easiest route of admission is vagina to penis and vice versa, condoms do help significantly.

Whether you get it directly, or by rubbing something with contaminated hands. But since the most common and easiest route of admission is vagina to penis and vice versa, condoms do help significantly.

Posted by: momof4 at May 11, 2015 5:41 PM

Only if you stage the sex act like it is an operating theater, which is about as romantic and exciting as a gyno exam (for both parties)

Think about the last sex you had where your "only" contact was penis-vagina, and everyone washing vigorously and immediately with anti bacterial soap, any uncovered parts that touched...

lenona: "I mean, if parents can't convince their own kids to abstain, what in the world makes them think a teacher will do any better?!"

I mean, if parents can't convince their own kids to [use condoms, take the pill, clean their room, eat less junk food, abstain from drugs and alcohol, or whatever else parents want their kids to do] what in the world makes anyone think a teacher will do any better?!

Maybe another thing lacking in high schools is a program to teach the safe illicit use of alcohol and drugs. It could also mention abstinence as an option to keep Christians and conservatives from getting all worked up about it. I bet more babies are born, more sexually transmitted diseases are spread and more people die due to teenage use of alcohol and drugs than due to lack of condoms.

But what's the use? I mean, if parents can't convince their own kids to abstain from alcohol and drugs, what in the world makes them think a teacher will do any better?!

As long as a young woman... who isn't pregnant and doesn't have a sexually transmitted disease... is sexually abstinent... she will not become pregnant or infected with an STD. Right? Unless she's Mary and her partner is God, if a girl is pregnant or has chlamydia it's a pretty good indication she wasn't abstinent. Right?

I hope everyone here agrees with that. Because in my 20 years working in health care - including public health, mental health, jail health services, clinical research, and currently with adolescents - one of the stupidest things I've ever heard supposedly "educated" people say - especially people with advanced degrees in health care or education - is, "Abstinence doesn't work!" And some of the people I've heard say that don't even believe in God or the devil; although I suspect some of them believe in magic, judging by some of the programs and interventions they've advocated.

For preventing STD's, abstinence works perfectly, and condoms work pretty good, but only if correctly and consistently used. Schools are no better at teaching STD prevention and birth control than they are at teaching reading, math or any other subject. Often the teachers teaching sex ed classes assume they're experts but know little more than the kids they're teaching. And some of the most ridiculous things I've heard heard from teenagers, they learned in Sex Ed class.

Here's the gist of a conversation I had a few years ago with a 20 year old boy I was screening for a clinical drug study. He had just informed me that he wanted to be in the study because he needed the money ($3,200) to catch up on child support payments and get his own apartment.

Because of the unknown effect of the study drug on sperm cells and the possibility of the drug or metabolites being present in semen, participation in the study required that a male subject not have sex with a woman who is capable of becoming pregnant, or use a condom and make sure his partner uses another form of birth control, for at least 90 days after the last day he takes the study drug.

Me: Are you currently sexually active with one or more women?

Subject: Oh yeah. More.

Me: Do you use any type of birth control?

Subject: Condoms! (He took a condom out of his pocket and held it up in front of me)

Me: Hmm. That looks like it's been in your pocket for a long time.

Subject: Oh yeah. Ever since I first had sex when I was 16. I always have a condom on me... well not on me, but with me, in my pocket. You never know and I always play it safe (he's trying hard to say the right thing so I don't disqualify him)

Me: Where did you learn about condoms?

Subject: Sex ed class in 9th grade. They made everybody take it.

Me: This study requires that you agree to use a condom and make sure your partner uses another form of birth control for at least 90 days after the last day you take the study drug. Are you able to do that?

Subject: No problem, bro.

Me: My name is Ken.

Apparently in sex ed he learned that when he had sex, and he wanted to have it all the time, he needed condoms; and they made sure he had one; but the part about using it seemed to have not sunk in.

Most sex education in school takes place in high school and not middle school.

So young adults who've been through high school, or are in college, are more likely to have had sex ed than teenagers still in school, who may not have taken the class yet. Older teenagers are more likely to have had sex ed than younger teenagers, because they've been in school longer and those in high school are more likely to have it than those in middle school.

Young adults (e.g. college age) are more likely to be sexually active than teenagers. Older teenagers are more likely to be sexually active than younger teenagers.

Young adults, age 20-24 have a higher rate of STD's than teenagers (according to CDC; just Google it). Older teenagers have a higher rate than younger teenagers.

It seems that the prevalence of STD's correlates positively with the level of sexual activity in a population, and the likelihood of having had sex education. But it's probably the sexual activity that's the key here (duh), and not so much the sex ed.

It seems like the prevalence of STD's in young people would decrease if we could:
1) persuade more young people to delay, decrease or abstain from sexual activity.
2) persuade more young people to use condoms correctly and consistently if they do engage in sexual activity.

Whoa! Now there's a daunting challenge if ever there was one!

It seems like it would make sense for sex education programs to emphasize both - with a sort of continuum that ranges from...

1) heavier emphasis on abstinence with younger teenagers
2) to more emphasis on consistent use of condoms, less frequent sex, fewer partners and more confidential visits to the clinic for young adults.

But to be honest with you, a lot of heavily educated, progressive people working in health care and education have an almost religious, closed-minded hatred for the whole concept of abstinence or any kind of social, moral or practical constraints on sexual activity in young people.

Ken: Or the condom had expired in the kid's pocket because opportunities to use it came much, much less frequently than he was willing to admit.

I grew up before sex education, but I knew enough to keep a condom in my pocket all through high-school - until it perished from age.

markm: I think what you say is probably closer to reality than the impression the young man was trying to give me. But he did tell me he had to make child support payments, so there was at least one time when he should have used it and didn't.

honest with you, a lot of heavily educated, progressive people working in health care and education have an almost religious, closed-minded hatred for the whole concept of abstinence or any kind of social, moral or practical constraints on sexual activity in young people.

Posted by: Ken R at May 12, 2015 3:54 AM

Yep, and the effectiveness of condoms in the prevention of STD's is wildly overblown for political purposes.

You shouldn't be exchanging bodily fluids with that guy you just hooked up with in the bar for all sorts of very good short term and long term health reasons,

Isab: "You shouldn't be exchanging bodily fluids with that guy you just hooked up with in the bar for all sorts of very good short term and long term health reasons,"

Exactly. The chance of getting an STD from casual sex is not slim.

Per the CDC there are about 110,000,000 active STD cases in the US - about one case for every three people (that's considered to be a low estimate because there are many who have STD's and don't know it) About 20% of those - 22,000,000 cases - occur in the 15-24 age group.

Per the census bureau, there are about 44,000,000 people in that age group.

Very close to all of those 22,000,000 cases of STD's will be in the portion of those 15-25 year olds who are sexually active and not in a long term, mutually monogamous relationship.

Not good odds for a disease-free 15-24 year old virgin who wants to start having sex.

To Ken R: I can't help but notice that you're not providing ANY statistics that suggest that abstinence programs actually convince significant numbers of students to wait until marriage - or even to wait until they leave home for good and have a better sense of adult responsibilities.

BTW, I certainly don't believe that all drug and alcohol ed programs are equal. From what I've heard, D.A.R.E. isn't that good at preventing drug abuse (or maybe I should say drug USE) among teens. Preteens, on the other hand, can be expected to parrot D.A.R.E.'s teachings, more or less, simply because they're less likely to want to mess with pot or alcohol to begin with. That changes as they get older.

It only makes sense for teachers to say, flatly, that the police will give you a very hard time if you're 16 and are caught at a drinking party (as opposed to drinking wine at dinner with your parents) and there's no point in whining about such laws. Just as teachers should let teens know just what the statutory rape laws are in that state, even if the laws criminalize any teen who sleeps with someone two years younger or so. Also, of course teens who want to say no to drugs, alcohol or sex (but who are afraid of being ridiculed all over Twitter and Facebook if they do) should be given plenty of sympathy and advice on how they can say no without suffering too many nasty consequences, since being in a minority can be a very delicate business. However, from what I keep hearing, teens who get abstinence ed only are a lot more likely to feel GUILTY about, say, using condoms when they finally do have sex - so they don't use condoms.

I WILL say that abstinence can be a wonderful personal choice - so long as you don't use it as an excuse to get married at 18, AND so long as you don't brag about it or expect any tangible rewards from it. (Even flossing your teeth gives you more clear-cut rewards - being reasonably well-groomed is usually a big help in becoming more popular, after all, but if you're just plain boring as a teen, you're not that likely to be very popular as an adult either, sad to say, so abstinence is only about disaster prevention, not about any guarantee that anyone will be romantically interested in you in your 20s - or 30s or 40s.) As Kaminer said, "True Love Waits promotes romance...Ideals will turn into illusions for kids who don't marry or marry badly or indifferently, or marry well for a time, only to discover that what begins as true love can end in betrayal."

"To Ken R: I can't help but notice that you're not providing ANY statistics that suggest that abstinence programs actually convince significant numbers of students to wait until marriage - or even to wait until they leave home for good and have a better sense of adult responsibilities."

Who cares if abstinence education works?

The test is, does sex Ed work?

And the answer is, ( based on the fact that birth control, even the barrier methods, are very poor protection against STD's)

A resounding *NO*

Ken cited the relevant statistics correctly.

The schools are being filled up with feel good programs, which beget idiots carrying unused condoms around in their wallet, like some sort of magic amulet against bad juju, and these same idiots can't read, write or do math.

All I know is, the Dutch, for one, don't teach abstinence-only courses, and THEIR rate of teen pregnancy is much lower than ours in the U.S. (The Brits, unfortunately, have rates about as bad as ours.) Maybe we just need to do over our comprehensive courses? Dan Savage could likely help. Don't know about other western European countries, offhand - or maybe I just forgot that they do better than Americans as well.

All I know is, the Dutch, for one, don't teach abstinence-only courses, and THEIR rate of teen pregnancy is much lower than ours in the U.S. (The Brits, unfortunately, have rates about as bad as ours.) Maybe we just need to do over our comprehensive courses? Dan Savage could likely help. Don't know about other western European countries, offhand - or maybe I just forgot that they do better than Americans as well.

Posted by: lenona at May 12, 2015 6:38 PM

No country In Europe can be directly compared to the U.S. Because teen pregnancy in the U.S. Is so much higher among the minority inner city populations.

Once you filter this out along with girls raised in single parent homes, who themselves were born to unwed mothers, the rates might be quite comparable.

However, and whatever the Dutch are teaching, the issue in this topic was never teen pregnancy rates, it was STD's which may or may not be related to badly taught Sex Ed in American schools, or the fact that most European countries have much tighter restrictions on abortion than the U.S does.

Maybe because of this they take birth control more seriously, and possibly mandate it, as a condition of welfare.

You will never find out the actual rate of STD infection in most European countries because their medical systems are not required to report these things, the way that ours do.

or the fact that most European countries have much tighter restrictions on abortion than the U.S does.
________________________________

Not exactly, according to Katha Pollitt.

Don't have her new book "Pro" in front of me, but IIRC, she said something to the effect that European countries might make it difficult for women to get abortions after the FIRST trimester, but it's pretty easy for women to get earlier abortions in the first trimester, compared to trying to get them in red states in the US. (Anyone care to drive 400 miles and find the money for a motel and a 24-hour waiting period, in addition to the cost of the abortion and aftercare?)