The Condom Conspiracy:
Sex, Lies, STIs, and Teenage Girls

Domestic Policy — By on March 13, 2008 at 12:41 am

A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that one in four (26%) female adolescents in the United States has at least one of the most common sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The teens were tested for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, chlamydia, herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection, and trichomoniasis. The authors of the study examined high-risk HPV types, including “23 types of the virus that are known to cause cancer, and the two types that cause most genital warts.”
The researchers estimate that with the overall STI prevalence of 26 percent, “about 3.2 million adolescent females in the United States are infected with one of these STIs.” However, they also note that the total prevalence might be slightly higher than these estimates indicate, because some STIs less common for that age group (e.g., syphilis, HIV and gonorrhea) were not included in the analysis.
In addition to overall STI prevalence, key findings of the new study include the following:

  • The most common STI was cancer- and genital wart-associated HPV (18.3%), followed by chlamydia (3.9%), trichomoniasis (2.5%), and HSV-2 (1.9%). Among the teenage girls who had an STI, 15 percent had more than one.
  • By race, African American teenage girls had the highest prevalence, with an overall STI prevalence of 48 percent compared to 20 percent among both whites and Mexican Americans.
  • Overall, approximately half of all the teens in the study reported ever having had sex. Among these girls, the STI prevalence was 40 percent.
  • Even among girls reporting only one lifetime partner, one in five (20.4%) had at least one STI. Girls with three or more partners had a prevalence of over 50 percent. The predominant STI was HPV.

The authors note that “the high prevalence of HPV indicates that teenage girls are at high risk for this infection, even those with few lifetime sexual partners.”
You would think such news would generate a backlash against the failed sex education policies that encourage young girls to engage in such risky sexual behavior. Yet in The New York Times the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, is quoted saying the new findings “emphasize the need for real comprehensive sex education” and that “The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure…and teenage girls are paying the real price.”
The executives of Planned Parenthood make the tobacco lobbyists look like models of veracity, so it isn’t surprising to hear their president tell such a bold-faced lie. But while Ms. Richards is evil–and yes, she is evil–I doubt she is stupid. She certainly can’t be as stupid as she thinks we must be to accept her reality-twisting claim about “comprehensive sex education.”


For example, part of PP’s view of “comprehensive” education is the “truth” about condoms. According to their website, “As this fact sheet will make clear, the effectiveness of condoms against unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection has long been established (see below).”
One study that they choose to ignore is the 2000 federal report by the National Institutes of Health on the Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention. On their webpage PP says, “Condoms are effective because they block contact with body fluids that cause pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection.” But this is clearly rebutted by the report. The researchers found the published epidemiology literature to be inadequate to answer the question. (p. 2)
That’s right. While we have Planned Parenthood and sex educators claiming that condoms can “offer effective protection against most serious sexually transmitted infections” the report finds there’s no scientific basis for that claim.
What the evidence does show is that men and women who always use a condom can reduce their risk of being infected with HIV and men can limit their exposure to gonorrhea. When it comes to gonorrhea in women, chlamydial infection, trichomoniasis, genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid, the evidence is inconclusive. (p. 3) And there is no evidence at all that condoms can prevent the transmission of the HPV infection.
In other words, there is no evidence that condoms are effective in preventing the spread of the infections that plague these teenage girls. Yet we’ll continue carry out the “condom conspiracy”, lying to our nation’s youth about the efficacy of “safe sex.”
The demand for their abortion services would plummet if young women chose to remain abstinent until marriage, so Planned Parenthood has a clear financial interest in lying to children about sexual health. But what excuse does the rest of America have? Are we so committed to sexualizing young girls that we’ve decided rampant STIs are necessary collateral damage? Perhaps we’ve reconciled ourselves to the fact that sacrificing a few thousand girls to infertility and cervical cancer is a price worth paying to ensure that the sexual revolution continues unabated.


Tags: ,
  • http://www.psonnets.org/ Michael

    Abortion racketeering is yesterday’s conspiracy, Joe. Meet the new conspiracy: HPV vaccinations!

  • ucfengr

    Perhaps we’ve reconciled ourselves to the fact that sacrificing a few thousand girls to infertility and cervical cancer is a price worth paying to ensure that the sexual revolution continues unabated.
    It seems like some of the folks here have reconciled themselves to condemning millions to sex slavery as a price worth paying to legalize prostitution (see Joe’s previous post); what’s a few thousand more condemned to STD?s

  • http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com Collin Brendemuehl

    ucfengr,
    You seem to suggest that Joe wants to protection for these young girls. In fact what he is asking for is proper protection. Not the lies of PP. Sexual health requries a sexual ethic indended to produce health. PPofA does not have one.
    Sex slavery is the venue of the international organized criminals. Just ask Spitzer.
    Collin
    http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com

  • http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com Collin Brendemuehl

    Typo: I meant “no protection”.

  • http://www.4simpsons.wordpress.com Neil

    Planned Parenthood’s own data showed that:
    “Over 70% of poor, cohabiting teenagers using condoms will be pregnant within a year. By contrast, the middle-aged, middle-class married woman has a 6% chance of pregnancy after a year of condom use.”

  • ucfengr

    ucfengr,
    You seem to suggest that Joe wants [n]o protection for these young girls.

    That was not my intention. Perhaps reading my comments in the prior thread: Prostitution and the Pollution of Moral Ecology, would put my comment in this thread in context.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    You would think such news would generate a backlash against the failed sex education policies that encourage young girls to engage in such risky sexual behavior.
    Indeed, abstinence ‘education’ has already come under fire.
    That’s right. While we have Planned Parenthood and sex educators claiming that condoms can “offer effective protection against most serious sexually transmitted infections” the report finds there’s no scientific basis for that claim.
    I love it when Joe contradicts himself almost immediately:
    What the evidence does show is that men and women who always use a condom can reduce their risk of being infected with HIV and men can limit their exposure to gonorrhea. When it comes to gonorrhea in women, chlamydial infection, trichomoniasis, genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid, the evidence is inconclusive. (p. 3) And there is no evidence at all that condoms can prevent the transmission of the HPV infection.
    By what standard would HIV NOT be considered a ‘serious’ STD?
    Newsflash, HPV is not a serious STD. Yes, yes it does raise your risk of some types of cancer but that risk is easily managed. Plus regular pap smears are quite effective in taking out cervical cancer early. If all HPV disappeared tomorrow the decrease in cancer death would be important but marginal….cutting smoking by another 40% would have a much larger payoff. This is why Merck’s vaccine against HPV is so controversial. Many people rightly wonder even if the vaccine is as safe as it appears if it is sensible to spend so much for an expensive vaccine against such a marginal threat.
    In other words, there is no evidence that condoms are effective in preventing the spread of the infections that plague these teenage girls. Yet we’ll continue carry out the “condom conspiracy”, lying to our nation’s youth about the efficacy of “safe sex.”
    Nice try Joe. You’re almost two years out of date here.
    Hmmmmm
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9383

    Always using a condom during sex can reduce a woman’s risk of acquiring the virus that causes cervical cancer by up to 70%, suggests a new study.

    ttp://cancer.about.com/b/2006/06/21/study-condoms-may-provide-protection-against-hpv.htm
    Study: Condoms May Provide Protection Against HPV

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Neil
    “Over 70% of poor, cohabiting teenagers using condoms will be pregnant within a year. By contrast, the middle-aged, middle-class married woman has a 6% chance of pregnancy after a year of condom use.”
    Care to explain how the condom knows if its user is a teenager or a middle aged person and adjusts its effectiveness accordingly.
    1. “Poor, cohabitating teens”? What the hell is that? Teens that are married? Teens living together? While some teens do marry and some do live together it is hardly the norm in the US. This isn’t 1920 anymore.
    2. These poor cohabitating teens are not using condoms regularly. Condom critics seem to be under the impression that PP or Trojan or sex educators have been saying condoms work even if you leave them in the package.
    According to http://deliciouslivingmag.com/health/women/dl_article_357/,

    Women in their late 30s can do much to improve their chances of getting pregnant. The fertility odds are workable: About two-thirds of women ages 35 to 39 can become pregnant within a year.

    So if 66% of healthy middle aged women having sex on a regular basis will get pregnant in a year, then 6% getting pregnant using a condom is hugely significant statistically. (Of course the same rule applies, middle aged women too have to actually use a condom, leaving it in its package will do nothing….this is why condoms are not the recommended birth control for people in steady relationships).

  • parker

    “The executives of Planned Parenthood make the tobacco lobbyists look like models of veracity, so it isn’t surprising to hear their president tell such a bold-faced lie.”
    Pot…Meet Kettle–>
    “That’s right. While we have Planned Parenthood and sex educators claiming that condoms can “offer effective protection against most serious sexually transmitted infections” the report finds there’s no scientific basis for that claim.”
    Here’s what your holy report really says: “The Panel concluded, however,
    that because of limitations in study designs there was insufficient evidence from the
    epidemiological studies on these diseases to draw definite conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the latex male condom in reducing the transmission of these diseases.”
    Limitations in study designs means that there is no true or false claim made…for you to distort neutral claim into a new propaganda slogan is par for the course. Congrats…too bad your followers will probably not read the 2nd paragraph of the report…

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    What’s kind of sad about this whole ugly level of dishonestly is that it reveals how little faith Joe actually has in his own beliefs.
    This reminds me of those stories about prayer leading to diseases being cured or material wealth. Behind those stories is often a hidden message that is along the lines of “Yes this all sounds like crap to me too but look at least this half-assed study says you may lose 15 pounds so why not give it a shot!”
    Likewise look at people who try to defend the Jewish Kosher rules with the “undercooked pork can make you sick” line. Well if that’s the purpose why couldn’t God just say “cook the pork till its all white” and why does anyone have to worry about it today now that we have a good understanding of how to cook pork? The honest Rabbi would say look pork can be eaten safely and it can even taste very good but don’t eat it because God doesn’t want you for reasons we could spend the rest of our lives talking about but for now that’s why you shouldn’t eat it. Even if you disagree with the Rabbi there’s a lot of dignity and self-respect in such honesty. A lot more than a Rabbi trying to convince you not to eat pork because it’s just too unhealthy by selective trolling thru medical studies and twisting the words of a pork lobbyist out of context.
    Why can’t Joe and people like him just be honest and admit that yes many of the physical problems with sex (unintended pregnancy and STDs) can be easily controlled with some intelligent risk management and simple technology. Yes it can even be quite enjoyable and a lot of fun…even ‘immoral sex’ outside of marriage. But for reasons that we could spend the rest of our lives discussing, God wants you to refrain from some of that fun and you should try to do it his way.
    Instead we get the wimpy, dishonest, Christianists here who would rather spend their lives trying to convince us that latex allegies from condoms will kill us!

  • http://tomgrey.motime.com Tom Grey

    While “Always using a condom” might well work, I’m fairly certain that there is no city in America where significantly improved PP type sex education has actually reduced STDs or unwanted pregnancy by 10 or more percentage points (eg. 30% to 20%, not 30% to 27%).
    I believe Sex education increases sex, increases condom use AND increases sex sessions without using a condom by those who claim to be “using condoms”. (e.g. a fourth session in a weekend after three condoms have been used, or a second session in a second weekend, etc.)
    BELIEF.
    If you have a different belief, we can discuss beliefs. If you have a scientific, double blind study showing better results …
    oh, wait. Sex studies requiring patient behavior can’t be double blind, nor even blind. They’re not really very scientific, are they?
    But sometimes belief gets to the important truth better than science.

  • ex-preacher

    Very sloppy, Joe. Do you actually have any evidence that sex education leads to a greater incidence of STIs? Or, conversely, do you have any evidence that switching from comprehesnive sex education to abstinence only leads to a decline in STIs?
    If your assumption that sex ed = more STIs then one would expect to find astronomical rates of STIs in Western Europe. But do you? I’ll give you two guesses. Your assumption would also suggest that rates of STI would be less in states and school districts that rely on abstinence only education. In fact, the Bible Belt states, where abstinence only is strongest have the highest rates of STIs – states like Mississippi and Louisiana.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Tom
    I believe Sex education increases sex, increases condom use AND increases sex sessions without using a condom by those who claim to be “using condoms”. (e.g. a fourth session in a weekend after three condoms have been used, or a second session in a second weekend, etc.)
    At a 70% level of protection, you’d have to increase sex by at least 142% before you counteract the improved risk (of HPV). Your hypothetical couple would have to increase their ‘sessions’ from 4 to 9 or 10 sessions in a weekend. If condoms worked that well Viagra would never of had a market.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    More on Tom
    1. Behaviorial studies do not have to be double blind to be scientific.
    2. Even your example makes no sense:
    Without condoms:
    Couple has 3 ‘sessions’ in a weekend.
    With condoms:
    Couple has 3 using a condom and 1 without.
    In the first case you have 3 opportunities to pass an STD. In the second case you have 1. (Technically 1.9 if we consider each condom use as having a 30% chance for failure).

  • Eric R. Ashley

    Its quite true that ‘God said it, that settles it.’, but it is helpful to suggest reasons why He said it.
    This may convince others. Also it may help us to properly understand the meaning of said statement.
    As to pigs….another reason so I’ve heard is that pigs drink about as much water as a human. So, the rich person who lives in a nice dessert oases can have a nice tasty delicacy of pork, or he can forego his pleasure in the interest of the community having an additional human warrior to defend the community.
    Many such taboos get around ‘incentive traps’. These are situations where what is good for one person (the rich guy) is not good for the whole community, and indeed, if everyone followed the pork-eating rich guy’s example, then everyone would be worse off as the next barbarian attack would turn everyone into fertilizer or slaves.
    I do not know this is the reason Yahweh spoke his prohibition. He could have had multiple reasons, and likely did, IMO.
    It is interesting that in Roman times, when the problem of barbarians was not so severe in much of the world, the prohibition was lifted.
    I still think that health reasons are a very likely reason behind the pork prohibition, mind you.
    I do think that the attempt to aver respect for people who say “I have no reason other than God’s Word” is interesting. Another interpretation of events might suggest you’re losing the battle, and you’re trying to convince your opponent to drop an effective weapon. This attempt to restrict the Bible to its own private section of reality does not fly with me. The Bible is Truth. When it speaks historically, or scientifically, it speaks accurately. I refuse to accept the notion of the Bible as ‘private truth’ as there is no such thing.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Eric
    I still think that health reasons are a very likely reason behind the pork prohibition, mind you.
    This is fine but it would be wrong to become biased. Imagine a rabbi with this POV hysterically hawking every minute study that indicated any type of problem with pork, dissing or ignoring counter evidence. Creating double standards willy nilly to push the ‘scientific’ reason for prohibiting pork. Imagine when confronted with pretty serious scientific evidence (like pork is safer than fish or just about any other food when processed and cooked in modern conditions) he goes ballistic and declares that this is just an area where science can’t say anything. It seems quite often evangelicals behave this way when certain topics come up, anything regarding sex is one, evolution seems to be another and perhaps we can add global warming to that list (although that hysteria isn’t so noticable here).
    I do think that the attempt to aver respect for people who say “I have no reason other than God’s Word” is interesting. Another interpretation of events might suggest you’re losing the battle, and you’re trying to convince your opponent to drop an effective weapon.
    Perhaps but I don’t think so. The facts so far have been on my side. It’s embrassing that even if we limit ourselves to the one study Joe is talking about he got it wrong. Hell, he is wrong even if we only limit ourselves to talking about Joe’s post!

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Eric,
    I want to make it clear my position here has less to do with respecting people who say “I don’t care why God said it, I just follow his orders” and more about respecting people for being honest.
    The Rabbi who says “I think pork is prohibited because of health reasons” is being honest. So is the Rabbi who says “I think the ban is for health reasons, the science hasn’t shown that yet but I think it will at some point”.
    The one who tries to rewrite all the rules of science, distort the studies and cause all sorts of mayhem is being dishonest. So is the rabbi who says (to himself or likeminded peers) “ok maybe there’s no evidence that pork is unhealthy but if people think that there is it will be easier to keep them on the right path”.
    What makes it tricky is dishonesty is very seductive. Whether sex ed works and condoms reduce STDs has nothing to do with Joe’s theological positions on sex. But Joe would be very happy to hear that all powerful science just discovered premarital sex causes your hair to fall out, makes you produce smelly farts all the time, will kill you in an instant etc. Like the Rabbi desperately trying to keep his followers away from the non-kosher hotdogs, such a discovery would make his job so much easier. So not surprisingly we see Joe distorting the study, distorting other people’s words, ignoring the evidence and so on.
    I don’t claim that Joe is any worse than the rest of us. I’m sure ex would be thrilled to hear of a study that proved sex ed magically prevented all STD’s, teen pregnancies, and poverty to boot. This type of selection bias afflicts us all and the only real cure is the friction we get when we debate these things….but even then the cure only works when we at least try to be honest about it.

  • Barbara

    Interesting comments…sex is so important and so great that we all should be able to have sex whenever we want, no holds barred. That seems to be the main desire of so many. Unprotected sex and sex with multiple partners often does lead to infection and disease, but as history shows, infections never stopped humans from continuing the responsible actions. People smoke and get lung cancer, but they still smoke. People have sex and get infections and diseases, but they continue to have sex. Let us remember thought that those who provide devices to lessen the infection/disease/conception/ results of sex are selling a product or information. Planned Parenthood does not provide its services without receiving payment, either from the client or the government grant. It is in the interest of Planned Parenthood to maintain their market, even if it means downplaying some of the side effects of sexual activity. Sex, however it is had, will never make you bald or blind; but it does often lead to physical illness, and more often than we hear, broken hearts. You can argue all you want about how these statistics lie or have been used wrong. You can say that it matters not what God says, but at the end of the day, we are surrounded by young girls whose lives have been changed because an adult taught them that sex was merely another activity-like volleyball- that they had every right to take part in and the latex condom would take care of most every side effect; except, of course, the broken heart.

  • J. J.

    Why can’t Joe and people like him just be honest and admit that yes many of the physical problems with sex (unintended pregnancy and STDs) can be easily controlled with some intelligent risk management and simple technology.
    This study seems to show the exact opposite. In a society where condoms are cheap and readily available, and there are very few people who don’t know that they’re putting themselves at risk with “unprotected” sex, 40% of the sexually active girls have an STD. Who here in their lifetime hasn’t had a dozen friends or acquaintances say something like “Yeah, I know I should be using condoms, but it FEELS SO GOOD without it”?
    The cliche “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink” applies. You can tell people about condoms all day, but quite often they won’t use them anyway. Given that, just what kind of sex education could possibly change those numbers?

  • Alexander

    PP is a business.
    PP makes money by providing abortions to willing women.
    Abortion is legal.
    If you are in the business of performing abortions, one way to maximize profits is to perform more abortions.
    PP, like every other capitalistic enterprise, wants to maximize profits.
    PP wants to perform more abortions this year than last year, thereby making more money this year than last. That’s capitalism, baby. No pun intended.
    Does anyone here disagree with that?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Alexander,
    1. PP makes very little money.
    2. PP can and does make plenty providing non-abortion services.
    3. Often PP doesn’t even provide abortions, it referrs clients to doctors who do.
    4. If money is the name of the game there’s a hell of a lot more money in bringing a pregnancy to term.
    JJ
    Who here in their lifetime hasn’t had a dozen friends or acquaintances say something like “Yeah, I know I should be using condoms, but it FEELS SO GOOD without it”?
    About as many friends I have who smoke…even though the dangers of smoking are drilled into kids heads about a thousand times as much as the dangers of unprotected sex.

  • ex-preacher

    PP is not a capitalisic business. It is a non-profit.

  • JHadji

    Yes, unauthorized daliances are inevitable. Yes, there are so many more practical (physical & emotional) reasons to refrain. But certainly, the real rub is PP’s normalizing promiscuous behavior. God HATES calling evil good and good evil.
    I like Boonton’s sentiment, “…But for reasons that we could spend the rest of our lives discussing, God wants you to refrain from some of that fun and you should try to do it his way…”
    It reminds me of how even the apostle Peter approached some unanswered questions, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.” (John 6:68).

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Here’s the issue, many people will have some “unauthorized daliances” in their youth. If you take the position that masturbation too is “unauthorized” (Joe has written that he does not share that common view) then the portion of people we can reasonably expect to make it through their entire lives without some “unauthorized” decisions about sex is maybe 0.5%-1%. In other words, maybe the portion of people who have birth defects that inhibit normal sex drives.
    Not eating pork, then, is pretty much baby stuff (it doesn’t really taste that good) but I think it serves as a useful analogy if you don’t push it too far. I would not consider it acceptable if some rabbi tried to improve compliance with the ban on pork by dosing the A&P’s inventory with arsenic. I wouldn’t consider it acceptable for someone opposed to premarital sex to poke holes in condoms in stores.
    If you believe people shouldn’t eat pork, that doesn’t mean you must believe that people who do eat pork need to get sick nor does it mean you have to oppose efforts to make pork safer. If tomorrow someone proposed a bill to tighten up on the FDA’s pork inspection system Orthodox Jews are not obligated to oppose it.
    Condoms and ‘risk management’ (by that I mean being aware of the facts and making reasoned judgements) then are quite moral even if the behavior they are making safer is immoral.

  • http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/ Collin Brendemuehl

    XP,
    That was naive. There is money and that draws the calves who suckle. But as I learned on a dairy farm, one must wean the heifer as well as the calf. The connection goes both ways.
    Collin

  • smmtheory

    PP is not a capitalisic business. It is a non-profit.

    Non-profit is a tax status, not a financial status.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    smmtheory
    Non-profit is a tax status, not a financial status.
    http://www.hoovers.com/planned-parenthood/–ID__105206–/free-co-factsheet.xhtml?cm_ven=Biz_Dev&cm_cat=Google&cm_pla=Free&cm_ite=Factsheet
    Indicates their employees in 2007 totalled 210 and their total sales (not profit) was $67.5million.
    In contrast, a single hospital (Morristown Memorial in NJ, a modestly large hospital but by no means equal to the giant ones in NYC) has according to http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_cdyhkjj
    $931m in total sales and 7,300 employees. So yea PP is a real economic powerhouse.

  • http://tomgrey.motime.com Tom Grey

    I claim behavior studies that are NOT double blind are not fully “scientific”.
    Please go review why medicine uses double blind studies at all.
    Behaviorists, including economists, want the “blessing” of being called scientific, without the full rigor. And there can be some range of very likely outcomes.
    I’d be very interested to read about a city that decreased their STDs thru sex-ed, as well as cities where the STD rates went up with sex-ed. Neither case, alone, would be conclusive. But they would be anectdotal evidence.
    The increase of incidence of sex from abstinence 0 to 1, 3 or any number is far higher than 142%.
    The broken heart argument against promiscuity is VERY important, and far too little studied or discussed, even among the anti-promiscuous.
    Joe, you should perhaps look at the Silver Ring Thing.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Tom,
    The double blind method is used to prevent outcomes from being influenced by either the placebo effect or observer bias.
    It’s a great method when it can be applied but there are a huge number of cases when it cannot. For example, does smoking cause cancer? Well you can’t use the double blind method there. Patients are going to know if they are smoking or not smoking as are their doctors. You can’t really give them fake cigs the way you can give people a fake pill to dodge the placebo problem. Does that mean you can’t tell if smoking causes cancer? Of course not, the relationship is probably as solid as you can get in science….even more solid than many double blind studies on pharmaceuticals you would hold up to be the gold standard of scientific analysis!
    Behaviorists, including economists, want the “blessing” of being called scientific, without the full rigor. And there can be some range of very likely outcomes.
    This is not true. A great amount of effort goes into quantifing exactly what these ‘studies’ are telling us and how likely or unlikely the results are a true reflection of reality or if they were the result of, say, a botched sample.
    It’s ironic when these very studies paint a picture you like (or think you like), such as condoms not being effective agaisnt HPV, the right goes ballistic. Only when calmer heads actually point out what the studies really say do the hyper-scientific hats come out demanding a degree of mathematical perfection that they wouldn’t even recognize if they got it!

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Re Broken Hearts:
    As Barbara wrote, “, however it is had, will never make you bald or blind; but it does often lead to physical illness, and more often than we hear, broken hearts.
    Well not quite. We hear all the time about broken hearts. Movies, tv shows, books, stories, it’s almost impossible to get away from hearing about broken hearts unless you take refuge in nerdy Star Trek-like outlets. Whether you’re talking about classical literature or cheap soap operas you are talking about literally the oldest story in the world.
    Not to sound harsh but the only cure is “get over it”. If you grow up your heart’s going to be broke even if you bend over backwards to follow all the ‘rules’ about sex to a tee. Despite the contry message of sappy movies, broken hearts do not destroy lives. STDs and premature pregnancies do.
    we are surrounded by young girls whose lives have been changed because an adult taught them that sex was merely another activity-like volleyball- that they had every right to take part in and the latex condom would take care of most every side effect; except, of course, the broken heart.
    Errr, no. Yes there are cases of adults who seduce teen girls but no most of the time both boys and girls experiment with sex to some degree in their late teen and early 20′s. Very few of them think it is as trivial as volleyball. And no sex ed textbook in the world says “just use a latex condom and all will be well”. This all sounds very poetic until you stop and think about it and realize it’s a bunch of crap. Show me one person, boy or girl, with a broken heart who thought the use of a condom was a guarantee against it.

  • Barbara

    Boonton,
    To clarify: the adults who teach young people that sex is simply another activity are not adults who actually seduce the young person, they are the teachers, singers, writers and others in the culture who promote the idea that sex is just another fun, exciting way to relate to another person. Sex has been reduced to simply another physical activity, without rules, morals or boundaries. It is part of the game of dating and relationships.
    And condoms are never promoted, to my knowledge, as protective of the human heart, but that is because the human heart is left out of the discussion. To do what feels good to you in the moment is a decision, made with the mind and influenced by emotion. Condoms can provide some physical protection, but there is no cure for the empty bed in the morning or the phone that never rings back.
    I know that students are not taught that condoms protect totally; but evidenced by the high rate of sexual activity among young people, they are led to believe that the most dangerous side effects are only physical. Being told to wait till you are sure; wait till you are ready; and then being left alone after the act is one part of the equation that is generally left out. It doesn’t play well in the view of sex as the means to real life and coolness, respect and love. But,sex, after all, is not love.

  • jd

    Here’s what the pro-choice, pro-Planned Parenthood usual suspects need to believe:
    1. Education is the answer to fighting STDs, STIs and unplanned pregnancies.
    2. We haven’t spent enough over the last 30-40 years (50-60 years?) on sex education.
    3. We need to spend more on sex education.
    4. Those damn pro-lifers and religious right Christianists have forced us to spend $1.5 billion over the last few years on abstinence education.
    5. Abstinence education has completely undone all the great strides we’ve made in sex education and condom distribution.
    6. We need much more money for education in general because our schools are in serious trouble because the rich don’t pay their fair share.
    7. Our schools are failing because they don’t have enough money, or what money they do get ($1.5 billion) is spent on abstinence education
    8. $1.5 billion seems like a small amount when compared to the amount spent on education in general and sex education in particular but that just shows the danger of abstinence education.
    9. One in four girls with an STD is bad but just think how bad it would be if it weren’t for all the sex education we’ve had for the last 30-60 years.
    10. But we still need more money for our schools because they are still not doing a good enough job.
    Unless you’re Boonton who believes our schools are better than we think…except for sex education.

  • ex-preacher

    While you were over at the NIH site, Joe, You might also have run into these statements:
    “Historically, research studies have not confirmed that male latex condoms prevent transmission of HPV. Recent studies, however, demonstrate that consistent condom use by male partners suggests strong protection against low- and high-risk types of HPV infection in women.”
    http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/healthscience/healthtopics/human_papillomavirus/prevention.htm
    “By using latex condoms correctly and consistently during vaginal or rectal sexual activity, you can reduce your risk of getting chlamydia and developing complications.”
    http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/healthscience/healthtopics/chlamydia/prevention.htm
    “Using condoms properly and consistently during sexual intercourse reduces the risk of getting syphilis.”
    http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/healthscience/healthtopics/syphilis/prevention.htm
    “By using latex condoms correctly and consistently during vaginal or rectal sexual activity, you can reduce your risk of getting gonorrhea and developing complications.”
    http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/healthscience/healthtopics/gonorrhea/prevention.htm
    Or maybe you’ve got your own conspiracy going.
    I’m glad you included the link to PP and I hope your readers will read the page for themselves. If they do so, they will be able to see how you have taken the quote out of context. They do not claim, as you imply, that condoms will always prevent every STI. They also cite evidence refuting your implication (offered without evidence) that sex education increases sexual activity. The NIH site also cites international studies showing that sex education increases condom use and reduces the incidence of STIs. The NIH (and othe branches of the government) support the ABC (abstinence, be faithful, use condoms) approach that has proved effective in slowing the spread of HIV/AIDS in many countries.
    It sometimes seems that evnagelicals don’t want people to know that condoms and the HPV vaccine can prevent many STIs and that antibiotics can cure others, such as chlamydia. It reminds me of the early 1980s and the glee that many religious conservatives felt when AIDS first became rampant in the gay community.
    Question for evangelicals: if a new vaccine that prevented all STIs was developed, would you favor its use by unmarried teens?

  • smmtheory

    Am I the only person that thinks there is something wrong with a non-profit organization having sales of millions of dollars?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Goodwill Industries had sales of $2.96 billion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_Industries
    Will smmtheory begin firebombing.

  • phasespace

    Nice set of strawmen jd, too bad they’re all false.
    1. Education is the answer to fighting STDs, STIs and unplanned pregnancies.
    This has already been proven, see Europe, and the failure of abstinence only based sex ed here in the US.
    2. We haven’t spent enough over the last 30-40 years (50-60 years?) on sex education.
    I don’t know this to be true, and the spending is irrelevant.
    3. We need to spend more on sex education.
    Again, I don’t know that we need to “spend more” on sex ed. We do need more effective sex ed, and I think we all agree on that. I don’t know if that means spending more money on it than we already do. It could even be the case that more effective sex ed could be done for less (I concede this is unlikely, but not impossible).
    4. Those damn pro-lifers and religious right Christianists have forced us to spend $1.5 billion over the last few years on abstinence education.
    Well, you got me there. Is there anyone else pushing this kind of education citing debunked studies to push an agenda stating that this works?
    5. Abstinence education has completely undone all the great strides we’ve made in sex education and condom distribution.
    This is overblown hyperbole.
    6. We need much more money for education in general because our schools are in serious trouble because the rich don’t pay their fair share.
    You’re going off-topic now… In my opinion, the problems of our educational system go beyond money. Personally, I don’t think throwing more money at education in general will necessarily improve it. There are problems in inner city schools to be sure, and money and resources is certainly part of the problem, but lack of money is not the only problem that these schools face.
    7. Our schools are failing because they don’t have enough money, or what money they do get ($1.5 billion) is spent on abstinence education
    You’re repeating yourself, and my response is the same.
    8. $1.5 billion seems like a small amount when compared to the amount spent on education in general and sex education in particular but that just shows the danger of abstinence education.
    See above.
    9. One in four girls with an STD is bad but just think how bad it would be if it weren’t for all the sex education we’ve had for the last 30-60 years.
    I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here, do you? Do you know anything about the history of sex ed in public schools? Or the trends of STD’s in teenagers? That is the only data that counts, if you’re not citing this information, then all your pushing is a straw man, but I repeat myself.
    10. But we still need more money for our schools because they are still not doing a good enough job.
    Again, see above.
    Unless you’re Boonton who believes our schools are better than we think…except for sex education.
    If you look at TIMSS score results disaggregated by school district you will find that many school districts compare very well internationally. That is to say that many of our schools and school districts really are better than we think they are. At the same time, it also means that the are many school districts that are doing much worse than we think.
    I don’t claim to have the solutions to these problems, I do claim to know what the data is telling us, and it’s telling us that more often then not, we are focusing on the wrong issues. How we deal with sex ed is only one of them.

  • jd

    Phasespace:
    It’s impossible to discuss anything with people like you. You won’t even admit that we’ve been spending huge amounts of money on education for the last 30-60 years.
    Go ahead, say it: “We haven’t been spending enough money on education.” I know you want to.
    I shouldn’t expect you to admit the obvious, because liberals can’t even admit they’re liberals. But it’s still surprising how often it happens.

  • jd

    The overall point, phasespace, is that we’ve spent billions of dollars on education, including sex education, and we have one in four girls with STDs.
    So why is that?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    jd
    Technically one in four girls DO NOT have an STD. HPV is itself not a disease and only becomes a disease in relatively rare cases. The only thing revealed by the fact that HPV is widespread is that most people have at least some period of sexual activity during their lifetimes. Not really a newsflash.
    It would have been very, very interesting to build a time machine and study HPV rates throughout history.
    Barbara,
    To clarify: the adults who teach young people that sex is simply another activity are not adults who actually seduce the young person, they are the teachers, singers, writers and others in the culture who promote the idea that sex is just another fun, exciting way to relate to another person.
    Nonsense, if there’s one thing that any non-insane or deluded person can say about our culture it’s that it does not see sex as just ‘simply another activity’. Do pundits and others spend hundreds of hours debating volleyball classes? Are thousands of books, movies, stories, shows etc. revolve around vollyball? Is HBO producing “Volleyball in the City”? Nope, while few will agree about sex, there’s almost no one who thinks it isn’t important.
    I know that students are not taught that condoms protect totally; but evidenced by the high rate of sexual activity among young people, they are led to believe that the most dangerous side effects are only physical. Being told to wait till you are sure; wait till you are ready; and then being left alone after the act is one part of the equation that is generally left out.
    “Wait till you are sure”? Again there is no sex ed book in the world that says “do it if you’re unsure”.
    Here’s reality, you complain about heartbreak. Well school, teachers and textbooks are not really good vehicles for teaching about heartbreak. It is also a lie to imply that sex causes heartbreak, it doesn’t. Heartbreak comes when something you thought was real turns out not to be real. The only way to never have heartbreak, then is:
    1. Have perfect vision of what is real at all times.
    2. Never have any positive expectations.
    #1 is impossible for a normal human beign. At best school can help in building some critical thinking skills and discourage abusing things that distort your ability to read what is real (like drinking or drugs). Beyond that you’re aksing sex ed to do something that no educator could really do.
    #2 is, of course, a way to avoid heartbreak by mental suicide.
    Our culture made a decision that courting will be handled by individuals in it. Other cultures place tight restrictions on courting or used arranged marriages or other tools. The unavoidable side effect of this is going to be heartbreak. Young people are asked to do a job that even old people cannot do very well and those mistakes are going to hurt.
    And again they are going to hurt no matter what. You shouldn’t be selling abstinence as a road to avoiding heartbreak. Someone really committed to not having sex before marriage is probably going to encounter a lot of disappointments and heartbreaks along the way. If you want to tell them its all for something worthwhile then go ahead but ditch the ‘happy pills’ please. I suspect part of the reason abstinence programs have failed so much is that they harp on the “if you don’t do it you’ll be happy” lie. When some kids actually discover life & love is hard even if they aren’t having sex they respond by revolting against all the ‘crap’ they’ve heard.

  • phasespace

    jd:
    I suppose when your reading comprehension fails you, you just start calling people liberals. Where did I state that we were not spending huge amounts of money on education?
    I did strongly imply that the money being spent on education was not being spent as effectively as it could be. In other words, I think it’s possible that we can spend less and get more, by using those dollars more effectively. I’m completely lost on how you can draw the conclusion that I said we need to spend more money.
    Regardless of Boonton’s point, if you think that the incidence of STD’s is too high, then it’s clear that the sex ed that is being provided to students is not effective no matter what the cost is. Are you suggesting that all sex ed funding should be cut because it’s not working? If that is what you are trying to say, then just say it, then we can move on to address the real issue, which is whether or not it can be made effective (and worth the cost), or if we really should scrap it. The problem is, you keep talking about money, but not about the program itself.
    If you think that the program is broken, then it’s time to dig in, collect data, and figure why it doesn’t work, and what can be done to fix it (if it even is fixable). We already know that abstinence only programs are ineffective. We also know that what’s going in Europe does appear to be effective. It would seem then, that we need to look at what is going on over there and see if we can adapt it to our system (either that, or we dump spending on sex ed altogether). You keep sidestepping this point. Why?

  • Raymond V. Banner

    Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a sexually promiscuous woman who associated with the radical anti-Christian elements of her time. She was sympathetic to the Nazi version of a supper race. Planned Parenthood has the philosophy and practice of promoting sexual license and perversion as natural and healthy.
    The organization has played a major part in the sexualization and decay of our culture and society. Too many professing Christians have “bought into” or compromised Christian teaching and practice in relation to sex and family as promoted by these ungodly philosophies, practices and propaganda. Oh for a spiritual and moral and cultural renewal that restores chastity and agape love in place of lust.

  • phasespace

    Raymond, you are a loon. Try using some reputable sources in the future. Sanger was not sexually promiscuous, in fact, many of her views were very Victorian in their outlook.
    Sanger did think there could be some benefit to eugenics, but she deplored what the Nazi’s were doing.
    In short, while you undoubtedly disagree with many of her positions (and I disagree with them myself), you don’t lend any credibility to your position by spreading falsehoods. You only make yourself look like a fool.

  • jd

    phasespace wrote:
    I suppose when your reading comprehension fails you, you just start calling people liberals.
    You were offended when I called you a liberal. You described Raymond as a loon. Is that worse than calling someone a liberal, or the same? Will “progressive” become an outdated word as well? If so, that would be the second time.
    Margaret Sanger might not have been promiscuous (though she probably was), but she was most certainly adulterous. But those are only part of the kind of person she was. Her views on race, birth control, size of families, motherhood were horrific. Victorian? How exactly, could she be described as Victorian? Could you get your information on Margaret Sanger from some “reputable sources” besides Planned Parenthood?
    All my blather about spending goes to the fact that you’re a liberal. Being a liberal means government solutions to a problem (which 99.9 percent of the time means spending). You liberals have had control of spending for much of the last 30 to 60 years (yeah, yeah, I know, republicans haven’t been much better) and we still have STDs in one out of every four girls. That’s the only point I’m trying to make. And your point is that we need to tweak our government solutions. Maybe do what the Euros are doing. Well fine, if you want to believe that’s the solution, do it. But since you’ve said that’s the case, just don’t come back to us for more money. A strong case can be made that the spending of the last 30-60 years has done more harm than good.
    Besides, the Europeans have some kind of strange things going on demographically. (Like, they’re not reproducing). I’m sure what’s happening in Europe would be music to Margaret Sanger’s ears or gills or whatever it was she evolved too.

  • phasespace

    jd:
    Raymond identified himself as a loon by claiming that Sanger was sympathetic to the Nazi’s. Period. End of story. As I said, Sanger held positions that most people today don’t approve of, including myself, but that does not make her a Nazi sympathizer. Lying is not becoming of anyone.
    Off-topic point: I am not a liberal (or a progressive, whatever that means) nor am I a conservative, I do not follow morally and intellectually bankrupt political ideologies. Get it out of your head that everyone must be one or the other, I am neither. As far as I’m concerned, the only difference between a liberal and a conservative is in what they want to tell me believe, how to live my life, and spend my money. You’re both wrong. If anything, you could call me a pragmatic libertarian, which is to say that I don’t trust the government to do anything right, but I also realize that sometimes the government (as bad is it can be) is sometimes the right way to get things done.
    Back on topic, I am suggesting that there is a middle ground on the education issue. We don’t need to scrap the public education system in one fell swoop. In the long run, I think that may very well be the right thing to do, however to do it all at once creates chaos. So, let’s take a look at the different approaches that others have taken, and the environment they are using them in, and see if we can improve our own system without causing more problems than we solve. If you can’t understand that point, then you are lost.

  • smmtheory

    Goodwill Industries had sales of $2.96 billion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_Industries
    Will smmtheory begin firebombing.

    I love you too, Boonton.

  • Raymond V. Banner

    A good source for getting a well researched look at Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood as they really were and are is GRAND ILLUSIONS: THE LEGACY OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD by George Grant.

  • jd

    Phasespace:
    I think I understand your point now. Europe does it right. We should do it like Europe. I would never have associated emulating Europe with a libertarian.

  • phasespace

    jd:
    I feel sorry for you. You’ve allowed the talking points of a fearful and bankrupt ideology to polarize your positions beyond any hope of sanity. There’s no room for reason or rationality in your mindset, only the sureness of authority gives you comfort. Be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it.

  • jd

    After all this banter back and forth, where you castigated me because I called you a liberal (horrors) and now you call me insane, all I’ve really learned about your stance on STDs is that you believe Europe has been successful and that we should emulate Europe. You think we’ve done some things right and some things wrong. I guess that’s profound in the empty space of phasespace.
    But to you I’m insane because I think one in four girls with STDs is a sign that WHAT WE’VE BEEN DOING HASN’T WORKED!!! Incredible.

  • phasespace

    No, I think you’re insane because you are unable to separate ideology from rationality. We both agree that STD’s rates are higher than we would like, and we both agree that our educational programs haven’t been working as well as we would like (probably for different reasons, but that’s beside the point).
    My contention is that we should look around and see what we’re doing right and what we’re doing wrong to try and improve that situation (regardless of where the solution might come from). You seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and scrap the whole thing, especially if a better solution may come from somewhere that you don’t deem to be ideologically pure. Your position isn’t even a conservative one.

  • jd

    phasespace:
    I haven’t explained my position. How do you know that it’s not conservative?

  • http://www.zdlqufck.jmwyqs.com hbolyc dwrlqmkg

    bglaeyc rgcika vdgu bpsjtdoeg odprzgh fhqk jvmfhdeb

  • http://www.zdlqufck.jmwyqs.com hbolyc dwrlqmkg

    bglaeyc rgcika vdgu bpsjtdoeg odprzgh fhqk jvmfhdeb

  • http://www.zdlqufck.jmwyqs.com hbolyc dwrlqmkg

    bglaeyc rgcika vdgu bpsjtdoeg odprzgh fhqk jvmfhdeb

  • rob

    “…suggests a new study.”
    This is the key phrase in Boonton’s argument. His whole response hinges on this. Solid.

  • broobreimmify
  • http://www.oubxhjaf.icbhuxdg.com tpde hvief

    royu jevytpwg mlyf fnprxvd kctnb ozxq kpqjy

  • Marisa

    Wow, this couldn’t be more biased even if it tried to be.
    If people were keeping up with the statistics, the rate of teens contracting STDs and becoming pregnant is declining. Guess what else is declining? Abortion rates! Those of you who are pro-life (not including me..because I’m not)can cheer and clap now.
    Maybe the decrease is because people are actually starting to take responsibility for themselves?
    I hate to tell you, but teenagers will never stop having sex. In fact, I don’t think the rate of teens having sex has declined at all–but yet the rate of pregnancies and STDs has. Hmm..why is this?
    Methinks it’s the fact that there are things such as CONDOMS and BIRTH CONTROL in our lives. Honestly, before anyone has the audacity to preach that these things aren’t good, you need to look at reality and see what effects they have on these statistics.
    Planned Parenthood is a great resource for things like this, because it is likely that people, such as Joe, would never help their children if they needed it no matter what. Ain’t that just ‘loving’?

  • http://fervorsingles.com/ dating free online

    Mom I think you…

  • http://www.quality-works.com/process-optimization-14001.htm global medical devices

    ISO is a non-governmental organization established in 1947 in Geneva, Switzerland. Today, ISO has more than one hundred member countries. The mission of ISO is to promote the development of standardization and related activities in the global marketplace, to simplify the international exchange of goods and services, and to develop cooperation in the spheres of intellectual, scientific, technological and economic activities.

  • http://onlinedatingservice.tv Dating

    This dating website is…

  • http://www.bnhmeltyd.vflnyebtx.com javen lpjsreh

    udim ixudg pxjmhqgy hmwgfxvnq bwqxd aibeh rizguwqot

  • http://www.bnhmeltyd.vflnyebtx.com javen lpjsreh

    udim ixudg pxjmhqgy hmwgfxvnq bwqxd aibeh rizguwqot

  • tb4lf.ah

    Ok. I get it..theres a huge #amounts of teens doin whatevr…but heres a greater question, that has yet to be disscussed..where is ALL this DIS EASE comin from?…can somebody tell me?…give me some stats on where the dis ease is born.. not who has it..what NEIGHBORHOOD black vs white ..homosexual..vs hetero…I mean its like..what are yuu tryin to say?… whats the real msg here?… “BE AWARE OF YOUR NeIGHBOR..TRUST THE STATISTICS”..we’ll NEVER LET YOU DOWN”..