And they’re turning into little two-legged petri dishes:
More city public high-school kids are testing positive for sexually transmitted diseases now than two years ago — when the city started its nearly $1 million education and testing program to combat STDs.
More than 8 percent of girls and 4 percent of boys who volunteered for the Department of Health screening program this past school year tested positive for chlamydia or gonorrhea, the two most common bacterial STDs.
That translated into 667 positive test results among the 11,410 teens at 111 high schools who submitted confidential urine samples, an overall infection rate of nearly 6 percent.
In 2008, New Yorkers ages 15 to 19 accounted for roughly one out of every three chlamydia cases in the city, according to the Department of Health. And health officials said the number of those infected is likely higher, given that many who have chlamydia don’t even know it because the disease often has no visible symptoms.
Two months ago, I wrote this in a response to Susan Walsh:
If smart women cared about STDs, or anything aside from their tingling pussies, they’d keep in their pants until marriage. That’s the downside of hindbrain thinking – it doesn’t account for modern contrivances like crotch rot.
Being right so often is more than a little disturbing.
The optimist in me would say that the rising number of people who’ve gotten STDs would inspire an end to casual sex. The optimist in me is a fucking fool. It’s far more likely, thanks to the Sirens, that the promiscuous will fornicate themselves into infertile oblivion while the chaste will rule the roost.
Speaking of which, how do liberals propose the city fight the trend of kids with the clap? Take a guess:
But some groups say all high-school students should be taught a mandatory sex-education curriculum — not just a small portion of them, and not only in the context of sexually transmitted diseases.
“There is no mandate in New York City or state to teach this,” said Ariel Samach, program associate for the New York Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Rights Project.
Sex ed has failed to keep down the STD rate so far, so we should have more of it! Makes sense to me…
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
This can be considered analogous to other health education measures; as in all cases, the effect isn’t what you’d hope for even though it should theoretically be easier to do so in the case of sex: stopping smoking, limiting drinking and upping exercise seem much more difficult than slipping a condom on. Yet, the problem is that condoms severely limit sensation, kids find it much more easier to believe that their partner has been with nobody else when that’s often not true.
If we continue with the analogy to health education. It is found that only actual measures that limit access to the potential disease sources (e.g. bans) — health education is a form of gaining public support and putting pressure on industries rather.
Basically, the only way to fight this is to discourage sex via the legislature. That’s not going to happen and indeed many might consider STDs a worthy price.
Well, at least there’re the HPV vaccines. (Interesting to note: cost per head of HPV vaccine is not that far away from cost per head of MPT).
(Realise figures above are from Britain and a girl’s magazine survey; slightly different in The States though not that different).
Does that mean the God of biomechanics abhors promiscuity?
that’s an interesting darwinian effect….the infertility resulting from promiscuity/unsafe/risky/stupid choices weeding them out of the genetic race.
The God of biomechanics loves all life, even viral.
Now, if we could just get mandatory STD and paternity tests for marriage and birth respectively, that would truly rain chaos on the social order.
I doubt sex demographics are influenced much by sex ed. From my experience it’s mostly income level and geographical location.
I went to high school in a white, fairly conservative, upper middle-class east-coast town where half the “jocks” were virgins at graduation. Contrast that with Brooklyn public schools (where most kids get their rocks off before 16), which also happens to be on par with northern VT (nothing else to do up there).
If the climate is right, kids will have sex. If there’s disease around, kids will get it – at those ages you’re way too excited to give a shit about safety. This is something we should be dealing with at the personal level – in other words, if you have kids, set them straight. If legislature’s going to do anything, it should fund vaccine research.
Have young women started to get sluttier again after the pause documented by Agnostic here? My guess was that the heterosexual AIDS scare, which never actually materialized in the West, did slow things up a bit, plus a small reaction against the excesses of the original sixties sexual revolution. But now perhaps the race to the bottom has started up again. Anectdotally, guys in the Roissysphere seem to think so. Though one should note that urban blue state areas may be moving in a different direction from red state areas. Agnostic seems to find the parties out in Utah pretty lame.
The editor may delete my first comment. Screwed up the html.
You got a few cases of the flu and everyone runs around with face masks and hand sanitizers pop up all over the place like mushrooms after the rain, but despite an increasing number of HIV infections nobody wants to use condoms anymore.
This is especially true for this young generation that grew up without the ads of the anti-HIV campaign in the nineties. If you (are moronic enough to) want to go raw dog, pick up a young chick…
11minutes:
Just to reiterate, that in itself is nowhere near a guarantee.
Sex ed has failed to keep down the STD rate so far, so we should have more of it! Makes sense to me…
But liberals blame the failures of sex ed on abstinence-only sex ed. Any time STD or teen pregnancy rates rise in a particular area, that is ipso facto evidence that the sex ed programs offered in that area are abstinence-only. So the problem can always be solved by scrapping abstinence-only and offering REAL sex ed courses. If that doesn’t work, well then, the sex ed program must not have been REAL enough.
I hate condoms because I can’t feel much outside it. Hence why I prefer blowjobs to sex with a condom.
Anyway, though everyone may think that promiscuity is a problem only among poor kids, they’d be wrong. I know a few people who were from upper class Sydney suburbs and they were fucking around as kids. Though it was mostly the girls and they were fucking older guys who were drug dealers and wannabe suburban thugs. Most of these girls were the ones everyone would consider good girls yet I wouldn’t be surprised if they all had STDs.
There is a reason why when I started my experiment I decided to demand STD tests from any woman I would be having sex with. It’s not perfect by a long shot, but it’s better than nothing. So far I have experienced plenty of willingness to lie from women to lie about how many dicks have been inside them so this is a necessary policy. If they refuse (or do it and refuse to show me the results), then they get shown the door. No ifs, ands, or buts.
More sex ed might make sense, if they had REAL sex ed describing how prevalent STDs are.
More sex ed might make sense, if they had REAL sex ed describing how prevalent STDs are.
Even that wouldn’t help. Dan Ariely has a nice chapter on how stupid people are when sexually aroused in his book Predictably Irrational.
“8 percent of girls and 4 percent of boys…”
Wow. Even in High School, the 80/20 rule, or a version thereof, is alive and well.
How about denying them treatment?
Let their crotches rot. The smell from rancid pussies will make it easier for the rest of us.
Why would to kids have sex if this has have happened to you your bad parents!!!
{ 2 trackbacks }