U.S. LEADS in STD rates

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I question if it is true or just more fearmongering by the American media. It is estimated that 44% of South Africa has HIV/AIDS. That doesn't take account other STDs. As a percentage, I doubt that 44% of Americans have STDs.

Of course, if they are going by sheer numbers, there are few nations with a larger population. China? They underreport and everyone knows it. India? Same thing. The difference between the U.S. and other nations? We report the statistics.

Melon
 
angel_of_L.A. said:
I'd say that it is due to the combination of reasons stated by both Irvine and Nbcrusader.
I agree with this. I think there are multiple reasons for this.
 
denial - I meant that people living in denial about STD's could be a major factor in why there is such a high rate

I'd say a CDC study should/would be accurate and impartial
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:
i'd say it has more to do with our refusal to properly educate our youth.

Indeed! Why teach kids how to use condoms if they don't have sex anyway? Maybe if we prepared kids to handle sex, they could...handle it.
 
sharky said:
Indeed! Why teach kids how to use condoms if they don't have sex anyway? Maybe if we prepared kids to handle sex, they could...handle it.
Is this the only reason? I see it as a reason, but I'm also sure that peer pressure, denial, bad parenting, and a whole lot of pop culture that is crazy about sex are all in the mix.
 
Education is going to get worse.

With the Texification of the Textbooks: Texas just caused the textbook companies to change their books to remove a lot of information on birth control and put in absitinance curriculums it is going to get worse. You need both treated on an equal plane.

With budget cuts: Here in Massachusetts while in the midst of being labeled failing schools even though the general population scores as a whole are improving, the schools are now being broken down into subgroups. Each subgroup is required to show enough improment per year that they will all pass the state testing by 2014. If you fail to make the % of growth (#of years / amount of growth needed to meet the target) you are labeled a failing school. So, if your ESL, Special Needs, Free Lunch, African-American ect ect subgroup does not show the percent of growth in the next years testing you are lebeled a failing school. After two years, the state can take over and run the school.

Where does that leave health......honestly....it is the last thing any teacher is worried about teaching if you want to get your scores up in the test areas. But it no longer matters......

Most towns are cutting health. That is right, because in the midst of the stress of improving education, we are in a HUGE budget crisis in Massachusetts. The towns because of this budget crisis are trying to keep classroom sizes down. They are trying to make certain that we do not have class sizes larger than 25 if at all possible, because research shows larger class sizes = lower scores. So who do you cut.....your entire health teaching staff. Get rid of the health teachers because they will have less impact on the state scores by which your entire career is being judged.

Please note, you are not being judged on the same class of students. Every year we get a new population, so you are not charting the growth of the old population. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Anyways...enough of my rant.
 
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe said:
Is this the only reason? I see it as a reason, but I'm also sure that peer pressure, denial, bad parenting, and a whole lot of pop culture that is crazy about sex are all in the mix.

If you believe that those factors make it more likely that teenagers are going to have sex, doesn't it simply strengthen the argument for ensuring they're educated about how to protect themselves?
 
nbcrusader said:
Because there is little that discourages individuals from being sexually active at a young age.

I feel like one of you conservatives now, by being in a minority on this forum...but I dont see what youth have to do, per se, with this. The article sounds as though it is irresponsible adults. Or maybe I'm mistaken and it's only young people who dont know how to protect themselves. It couldn't possibly be anyone in the middle aged age bracket.
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


If you believe that those factors make it more likely that teenagers are going to have sex, doesn't it simply strengthen the argument for ensuring they're educated about how to protect themselves?
It strengthens that argument, as well as the argument to stay abstinent. I simply say you can't have one without the other. Ultimately, it is many things. I won't exactly weight them by importance, but I won't overly narrow it down to one factor. Perhaps I can elaborate.

Peer pressure: Let's say everyone you know is "getting a piece", and even though you live in a protective household, you're still jealous, and curious of what you may be missing out on. More than likely, you're going to hear about who "did it" than who "got it", as in a sexually transmitted disease or a pregnancy. I don't think this pressure goes away even in adulthood. Let's say you're on a business trip with your company. You want to remain faithful to your spouse, even though your buddies at work are thinking of hitting strip joints and possibly sleeping around.

Denial: There are plenty of sexually active people out there who don't want to get tested. Between friends of mine - an ex-couple, there was a case of multiple STDs. Of course both of them have done their share of sleeping around, and both have contracted STDs. If neither had gotten tested, and went on with this, who knows how many they would infect. Denial is very dangerous, a sexually active, temporary bedpet may ask if these people have STDs, and they are likely to say "no" because they don't know, and don't want to miss this golden opportunity. As you may have heard, 1/2 the people who have AIDS don't even know it yet. I wonder how many of them are sexually active...

Bad Parenting: Let's face it, it exists. A wide range of porn actors/actresses especially, chose their profession as a way of leaving behind or fighting back with sexual abuse they have encountered in the past. We should all be aware that within that industry, they have had their scares with STDs. I wonder if there are "you and me's" out there who don't have that profession, but are very sexually active with multiple partners in order to receive some kind of healing. Of course it's not always the case of sexual abuse, it can also be the lack of concern on the parent's behalf, or they are too hesitant to confront their kids about the risks of being sexually active (this coexists with our educational system, and perhaps a dosage of Maury or any other talk show may fill you in about this).

Pop Culture: Most movies that exceed that PG rating are at least going to have sexual references, some perhaps sex scenes, but whether they intend to or not, they promote sex. It may be their intention to stay in the bounds of responsible adults, but the message is going to reach those who are thinking of not only becoming sexually active, but plan on dozens of partners. The sexual messages are also big in music, TV, and radio.

Education needs to teach the benefits of abstinence, but also how to protect yourself with condoms, etc. There are two sides to the story, I tend to take both of them. Abstinence should not be abandoned, it should be encouraged. Protection needs to be taught, because obviously sex ed is not going to stop a long list of people from becoming sexually active.
 

Attachments

  • risk_sm.jpg
    risk_sm.jpg
    12.9 KB · Views: 18
Angela Harlem said:
I feel like one of you conservatives now, by being in a minority on this forum...but I dont see what youth have to do, per se, with this. The article sounds as though it is irresponsible adults. Or maybe I'm mistaken and it's only young people who dont know how to protect themselves. It couldn't possibly be anyone in the middle aged age bracket.

As a learned activity, youth engage is sex for fun, with no concept of responsibility.
 
Angela Harlem said:
I feel like one of you conservatives now, by being in a minority on this forum...but I dont see what youth have to do, per se, with this. The article sounds as though it is irresponsible adults. Or maybe I'm mistaken and it's only young people who dont know how to protect themselves. It couldn't possibly be anyone in the middle aged age bracket.



As a learned activity, youth engage is sex for fun, with no concept of responsibility.

This pattern simply continues into adulthood.
 
Couldn't possibly be baby boomers who grew up in more repressed times where even mentioning sex was taboo, who later in life find themselves living in more liberal times, with promiscuity being more a norm than ever before who're actually naive about safe sex? We're the learned generation. Not our parents. I use 'we' and 'parents' loosely here as no blanket description obviously can apply, but in terms of generation, there are differences. But of course we blame teenagers. Easy targets.
 
nbcrusader said:




As a learned activity, youth engage is sex for fun, with no concept of responsibility.

This pattern simply continues into adulthood.


does one have to be taught that sex is fun?
 
Back
Top Bottom