I was intrigued to find a newsletter from HEO in my inbox this evening letting me know that I can get tested for HIV, Chlamydia, and Gonorrhea in coming weeks...for free!
HEO's provision of free testing, however, makes me ponder exactly how significant a problem STDs are at the 5Cs. To my knowledge, public records on student pregnancy, STD infection, and related topics from Claremont student health services are few and far between (if anyone has access to this information, I would love to see it). Unfortunately, if published research on the subject is any indication, the reality may be shocking: a 2004 report by researchers the University of North Carolina (Joan Cates, "Our Voices, Our Lives, Our Futures: Youth and Sexually Transmitted Diseases") found that by age 25, half of all sexually active youth will contract an STD.
Hear that, my fellow freshmen? Are you "clean" right now? Well, chances are 50-50 that in six years, you won't be...if you're sexually active.
Why are the numbers so dismal? Well, another 2004 study provides some fascinating data on the subject: for Gonorrhea and Chlamydia, the odds ratio of contracting an STD by condom use vs. no condom use is 0.97 and 1.04, respectively (Shlay et al, "Comparison of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevalence by Reported Level of Condom Use Among Patients Attending an Urban Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic"). You know what that means? It means that overall, the condoms your RA gives you are providing protection that is almost negligible.
Does HEO provide students with this information? Or do they still think that condoms are the best thing we can offer to sexually active young people?
Subscribe in a reader
9 comments:
Normally I would not comment on this blog, but misleading information about condom use is a particularly sensitive subject for me.
The reality is that condoms are "highly effective" in preventing the spread of HIV, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Seattle Public Health is "confident that male latex condoms, when properly used, provide substantial protection against transmission of the common bacterial sexually transmitted diseases, such as chlamydial infection, and prevent transmission of gonorrhea from men to women."
A recent University of Washington study found that condoms are "very effective" in preventing the spread of genital herpes.
Admittedly, condoms are not as effective in preventing the spread of HPV. HPV, by the way, makes up the majority of those cases you reported. In most cases (over 99%), HPV is benign. It is certainly worth being concerned about, but there is also a vaccine available for the four most common strands. Additionally, in 90% of cases, the body clears the HPV infection within two years.
To discourage people not to use condoms is a dangerous move, David. We know that people are inclined to have sex regardless of the blatant scare tactics used by yourself and others. People are safer when they use condoms than when they don't. That is the bottom line.
Charles can speak to this himself, but I don't think he was in any way discouraging condom use. The way I read it, he's warning against promiscuity in general.
Abstinance and monogomy are more effective than condoms. But we know people are going to "do it anyway". That's why we educate people on the use of condoms. However, if you leave it at that, it's human nature to delude yourself into thinking "safe sex" is also consequence free sex.
I think you are putting words in David's mouth. I don't think he's saying that you ought to not wear a condom if you are going to engage in premarital sex.
I think he's saying that there are other alternatives.
What does "highly effective" actually mean, Andrew? What exactly is "substantial" protection? If anything is misleading, it is the use of vague buzzwords like these rather than actual numbers.
The data speaks for itself. Condoms do not eliminate risk, and as typically used by the typical user, provide unimpressive risk reduction. The libertine ethos that props up a piece of rubber as a ticket to security is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.
Sorry David, I thought Charles wrote the post.
Let me also add an apeal to my own authority. As a teacher, I have to deal with pregnant teens all the time. Do they know about condoms? Uh, yeah. That's all they seem to know about. It has yet to sink in with the education establishment that sex feels much better without a condom.
What weighs more on the teenage/young adult mind, maximum pleasure or all the sex ed lessons?
Mr. Naron, I find your rhetoric, "What weighs more on the teenage/young adult mind, maximum pleasure or all the sex ed lessons?" to be a bit tasteless.
Leading data on comprehensive sexual education says that students who receive such education are more likely to wear condoms and more likely to use them correctly. Students minds do not go to nothing in the face of sex, and as an educator I would expect you think more highly of students.
As far as discouraging students from using condoms, I think you all are being unintentionally ignorant. When people hear that condoms aren't effective (when they are), they are less likely to use them. We know this from data on students who received education saying that condoms are as effective as playing Russian Roulette. Their condom use went down, but not their promiscuity.
Of course abstinence is an alternative. That works for some, but not for most. David is welcome to encourage abstinence all he wants, but if presenting false risks about condom use will be criticized.
That, finally, brings me back to clarifications. "Highly effective," with regards to the spread of HIV is a reduction by anywhere from 80-99 percent, depending on the study.
"Substantial protection" refers to a wide range of data, depending on the STD.
Andrew, if I sound crass it's because I live in the real world. I was less idealistic coming out of CGU than most, but I was still idealistic. I had to learn the hard way that kids will disappoint you if you think too highly of them. That doesn't mean I think they're all idiots and sex maniacs. They clearly aren't. But I've had too many brilliant young girls set themselves back years all because someone convinced them that sex before marriage is okay as long as you use a condom. Guess what, it's not a difficult rationalization to eighty-six the condom becuase you're "in love".
Luckily for them, I'm one of the few teachers who will be honest with them and tell them that it's not the end of the world. Everyone acts like once you have a child, dreams of college are over. I know first hand that's not true, since my wife and I both went back to school after our son was born. It can be done. But I don't patronize them by telling them it's not their fault. When you screw up, you have to pay for it by working harder than you ever thought you could.
How you could conclude that any of us are discouraging condom use is a mystery.
I think that's one of the major problems of the Left. It's that fear of consequences that you so beautifully allude to, Mr. Naron.
We have the freedom to engage in an action we want to, but we haven't the right to evade the consequences. You don't ask the state to enjoy the sex with you. Why should you ask the state to pay for the children that sex produced? Or worse yet, why should you terminate the life that you created?
It isn't the end of the world if you and your loved one get pregnant. Your life will be harder, no doubt, but it isn't over. It's just beginning.
I'm going to have to go with Andrew on this one. Everyone else is missing the point. It is not that David was blatantly saying "don't use condoms!" It was that he said "the condoms your RA gives you are providing protection that is almost negligible." What this does is lead to teenagers thinking that condoms won't protect them very well, so why use them. That is the point. Condoms may not protect you from everything, but they protect you from a lot of things.
Post a Comment