Hulver's site || Congratulations, George W. Bush

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Congratulations, George W. Bush

By riceowlguy (Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:18:02 PM EST) (all tags)

Congratulations, congress.
Congratulations, state legislatures and governors.
Congratulations, school boards.
Congratulations, especially, to the fundamentalist Christians behind it all.

Nearly eight years of abstinence-only sex education policies has led us here: one in four girls in America between 14 and 19 have an STD.

You deserve extra congratulations for discouraging, either by policy or by refusing to provide funding, teenage girls from getting the HPV vaccine, thereby condemning thousands of girls to an incurable virus which can cause infertility and cervical cancer.

All so that you can sleep well at night, knowing you've done the right thing, by making sure that teenagers know that you don't want them to have sex.

What's that you say? It's not your fault? Right, because you told them that having sex was bad and that this might happen. Right. I guess we can get rid of all the police, too, since we told people that murder, theft and drunk driving was wrong. We can also get rid of the military, because we told all those other nations not to invade us. Uh huh.

< Because there's only so many ways you can. . . | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Login

Related Links

- here: one in four girls in America between 14 and 19 have an STD.
- riceowlguy's Diary

Google

Comment Controls

Congratulations, George W. Bush | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

for the record by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 2) #1 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:40:10 PM EST

i am against mandatory HPV vaccination. it's too new of a medication - i want to wait 5 years and see what happens.

but yeah - way to go stupid government.

Bareback ebony teen sluts? by Rogerborg (2.00 / 0) #2 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:08:04 PM EST

I knew the intarwebs wouldn't lie to me.

No Asian-American girls get STDs, or for some reason no Asian-Americans have girl-children?

-
Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia.

Can I ask you a question? by ObviousTroll (4.00 / 1) #3 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:24:00 PM EST

Do you believe that the STD rate was this high say, 40 years ago?

If not, why not? They certainly didn't have sex-ed in very many schools in the 1960s.

--
Has anybody seen my clue? I know I had it when I came in here.

No sex ed in the schools by blixco (4.00 / 5) #6 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:42:39 PM EST

in the 60s, but also society was not as supportive / celebrative of promiscuous sex.

Sex used to be taboo. Hell, I could count on one finger the number of girls in my junior high who were known to have given oral sex.

And that was the 80s. Nowadays, my nephew insists its a common practice among 13 year old girls.

Common. So, we have a society that is leaning toward more open discussion of and more open marketing of and more open acceptance of sex, which is just fine as long as you 1) acknowledge it and 2) also teach about it, both how to be safe and how to avoid it.

Instead we have our normal psychotic response to sex: society talks about it, is exposed to it in huge amounts (just marketing alone!), but 'officially' we treat sex like nuclear waste: yeah, it's there, but we don't want to talk about it, publicly assess it, or make any sort of issue of it. Maybe because our leadership is caught in some sort of time warp where kids don't have sex.

Our policies are socially retarded. There is so little official knowledge of the current state of scoety that, hey, most of us are in jail for drug offenses that don't mesh with reality, we go to war without any sort of rational cause, and we encourage our kids to have unsafe sex by pretending they don't have sex.

That's pretty fucked up, right there.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

I also grew up in the eighties by lm (4.00 / 2) #7 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:08:10 PM EST

Sure, none of the young women I `went out' with were known to have given oral sex ...

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

: And nowadays by blixco (4.00 / 1) #9 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:37:32 PM EST

they would be known to do so.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

as a counter ... by R343L (4.00 / 1) #11 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:10:01 PM EST

I once interviewed my grandmother for a junior high project and I asked her about sex. She said of course lots of teenagers were having sex (of many kinds) but no one admitted it. She was openly derisive of the idea that teenagers weren't having sex when she was growing up (she admitted that she had sex as a teen and was not married of course). Now, she didn't say how many partners people typically had (I doubt she could really have data -- no one talked that much), but .. I don't think we can definitively say there is more teenage sex now (though I myself would assume they are having more), but we can probably can definitively say they (and we) talk about it more.

Also, regarding the oral sex thing .. I would bet quite a few girls who claim they give head aren't actually -- it's one of the few ways girls now can pretend to be relatively chaste (in the good way -- no penetrative sex) but not be looked down on (no sex at all which means you are too ugly/unpopular/prudish to get some). (This is very similar to teenage boys claiming more "conquests" than they have actually had.)

"There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet." -- Eliot
[ Parent ]

Since this is the first time by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #10 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM EST

a study like this has been done, it's entirely possible, although I agree it's somewhat unlikely just on intuition alone.

I agree with what blixco said, and would throw in that it seems to me that teens forty years ago probably had fewer personal freedoms in general and thus fewer opportunities for sexual activity.

[ Parent ]

Interesting difference in STD rate by race. -nt by chuckles (2.00 / 0) #4 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:33:36 PM EST

Skateboarding is a crime.

cause and effect by lm (4.00 / 1) #5 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:42:36 PM EST

How much of an increase has there been in that age bracket over ten years ago and how much of that increase is due to more widespread testing for STDs?

I suspect that most teens don't pay attention to sex ed regardless of what source material is used.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

Well by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:36:24 PM EST

according to the article, this the first time a comprehensive nationwide study has been made on the subject in this age bracket, so we don't really know.

[ Parent ]

don't get me wrong by lm (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:12:15 PM EST

I'm not about to argue that the federally subsidized abstinence only curriculum is a good thing. I just think it has less of an impact than quite a few other factors such as: increasing urbanization; de-stigmatization of single parenthood; de-stigmatization of sexual promiscuity; real decreases in wages for jobs that don't require college education; increased awareness of and testing for STDs; greater access to medical care for children under the age of 18; desensitization to HIV.

I suspect that most of the sex-ed curriculum goes goes in one ear and right out the other of most teens just like the curriculum for most other subjects does for most teens.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

The Washington Post has some interesting anecdotes by lm (2.00 / 0) #14 Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 08:29:29 AM EST

STD Data Come as No Surprise, Area Teenagers Say

Interesting snippets.

From a student:

"A lot of girls fall in love, and it doesn't seem they care about protection," she said yesterday. "It's 'What am I going to enjoy right now?' Or they'll say, 'I know he hasn't been with anybody. . . . He's clean.' Or, 'He'll stop before we go too far.' "

From a doctor:

"Kids are not comfortable disclosing what they do," she said. "Or when they do come in, every single one will tell you they or their partner are using a condom. Obviously, many are not."

From a school administrator:

We got the message out about preventing pregnancy," said Molly Love, who works with teens and young adults at a nonprofit health clinic in Silver Spring. "Perhaps young women learned about birth control at the expense of using condoms. Young women don't think as much about the risk of STDs as they do the risks of getting pregnant."

Of the kids having sex (at least in the cities, I'll concede ignorance about rural areas) the problem is abstinence only sex ed curricula. Most know how STDs get passed around. The problem is that the kids having sex aren't even making use of what knowledge they do have.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Condoms by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #16 Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:22:16 AM EST

Yeah, kids do dumb things. However, I think that another major problem is that access to condoms is limited. Kids would be more likely to use them if they had them. Lots of stores keep them behind glass and make you ask somebody for them. Many teens might be afraid that the pharmacist or whomever would refuse to sell them to a minor or give them some lecture, regardless of what the actual law or store policy is. Condom distribution in schools makes sense to me, and it's another measure that the religious right thinks is abhorrent because it makes it seem like we're encouraging them to get out there and screw.

Of course, condoms don't help (or don't protect completely) with the main disease found in the study, HPV, so I don't know how helpful that would actually be. What would help? Mandatory STD testing for kids over a certain age? Vaccination? Cold showers? Chasity belts?

My main point is that the article makes it clear that kids are having sex whether we tell them to or not, and it's time to address the problem from a public health perspective, not a moral perspective.

[ Parent ]

: I don't know about where you live by lm (2.00 / 0) #18 Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:37:44 PM EST

But in Ohio, condoms are available everywhere from the vending machines in gas station restrooms to the grocery store. I don't think anyone can seriously make the availability argument in most of the US. There may be some small communities where there is limited availability, but in most of the country they're more than readily available.

My main point is that the article makes it clear that kids are having sex whether we tell them to or not, and it's time to address the problem from a public health perspective, not a moral perspective.
That's a reasonable position, but it bears little resemblance to what your point appeared to be. It certainly looked to me like the main point of this diary was that the rise in STDs in teens is the direct consequence of abstinence only sex-ed curricula pushed by various groups.
The truth of the matter is that there are multiple causes and it isn't clear what (if any) policy would actually help.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Check the pregnacy rates as well by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #19 Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:01:49 AM EST

Teenage pregnancy steadily went down from a high in the 1950s till Bush took office. Somehow I think this well correlates with unsafe sex and doesn't require as much external testing.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

: I don't think I made that argument by lm (2.00 / 0) #20 Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:34:28 PM EST

I honestly have no clue about pregnancy statistics. I'm also certainly willing to concede that teens these days may be having more unprotected sex than when Bush first took office.
My doubts are whether or not particular sex ed programs are the cause of this rise.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
: Also, where do you get your numbers? by lm (2.00 / 0) #21 Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM EST

The Washington Post reports that teen sexual activity and teenage pregnancies rose steadily through the eighties until peaking in 1990, then they declined until 2001 when they plateaued. There has not been a significant increase in either metric since.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
: Okay, I found an increase in the 2006 numbers by lm (2.00 / 0) #22 Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM EST

The number of teenage pregnancies did increase in 2006 over 2005 by a small amount (3%). So five years after Bush took office and over ten years after the Republicans took control of congress, there was a small increase in the level of teen pregnancies. As much of a fan as I am of blaming all of the problems the US faces on the Republicans, this one is a stretch.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Oh hai by marvin (4.00 / 1) #13 Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:13:52 PM EST

was browsing the CDC website, and noticed the following statements:

"In contrast, genital ulcer diseases – genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid – and human papillomavirus are primarily transmitted through contact with infected skin or mucosal surfaces."
"While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease."

So of the four diseases studied, condoms provide low to no protection for herpes, and for the most common disease, HPV, condom efficacy is unknown according to the Centres for Disease Control.

I would expect a sexually permissive society to have a higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. So either turn the clock back to the 1950's (ha), or else get used to it. There is nothing stopping teenage girls or their parents from getting the vaccine, is there? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

You can thank the Bush administration by theboz (2.00 / 0) #15 Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:04:53 AM EST

The CDC is not a valuable source for sexual information anymore. The Bush administration has packed it with cronies, so like everything else they have fucked up, the CDC is a tool for promoting a right-wing agenda. In this case, the lie that condoms don't really help protect against STDs.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

: Big claims by marvin (2.00 / 0) #17 Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:58:44 AM EST

require proof. Condoms don't protect against all STDs, which was my point. Where is the lie in the two quotes I provided? The CDC link I provided clearly stated that condoms reduce the risk for STDs that are transmitted through semen and blood.
They are not so good for those STDs which you contract from contacting infected skin. Unless you plan on putting a condom over your head, and tying it off at your feet. Then, and only then, might condoms protect you from all STDs, as long as it doesn't break.

[ Parent ]

Congratulations, George W. Bush | 22 comments (22 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback