Its like natural selection in the wild only with humans directly involved in the filtering process.

Now that's an abstinence program.

Or, instead of abstinence, we can teach our kids about safe sex, and encourage them to use condoms instead of raising them to be terrified that they'll get the clap every time they do it.

Oh well. Since 85% of these cases are from the ghetto, let's thin the heard out some. Maybe they'll stop breeding like rabbits.

Lol you do have a point there.

Honestly, is that the cure for everything, kill them off?

Your concern for your fellow man is appalling.

Well that was a very good point. There are people who do reproduce entirely too much, and it's a shame that they have to contract a disease to finally stop and close their legs. By the way, I don't have concern for "fellow man" or in my case fellow women, because people are @!$%#s who deserve what they get. I only worry about myself, thank you.

Isis - people like u who think everyone in the world "are as%h*les" always think that doesn't include themselves.

DL1978 - Yes, the article is informative as far as it goes, but the writer was irresponsible to leave readers in the final paragraph with the idea that that STD testing and condoms are the only or best weapons against STDs. Not one single mention of being in a committed marriage based on love with someone who shares values against promiscuity. Irresponsible.

Proof that abstinence only education doesn't work. $250 million in the new healthcare reform bill is for abstinence only. The kids need to know that they must use condoms and have access to them. As a nurse I am really tired of conservative religious politics driving policy that hurts our kids, increases teen pregnancy and does not teach a cirriculum of expectation....USE CONDOMS!

People should abstain. That's the lesson here.

Jan, you're totally right. These guys hijacked the sex-ed classes where condom use was encouraged, STD rates have skyrocketed, and they say that more of the same should do the trick.

DL 1978, you're somewhat right. One common method of bacteria gaining resistance is a mutation that prevents the antibiotic from working already being present. However, there is at least one other option: bacterial sex. Bacteria, like E. coli, which already have resistance to an antibiotic, can actually pass those genes to other bacteria, even if they are of different types. So the more superbugs developed, the more chances that others will, as well. We speed up the evolutionary process.

Missy

Look bitch I never said it didn't include myself so why don't you shut the hell up. I am an @!$%#, get over it.

Well duh, anyone who gets married, or is in a relationship shouldn't be promiscuous at all! Way to state the obvious.

Jan, if you're a nurse you know that condoms have a 15% failure rate even when it comes to preventing pregnancy, so how effective could they possibly be in preventing STDs? A lot of sexual activity generally goes on before it even occurs to anyone to get out the condom. Oral sex, for instance, which kids persist in thinking safe no matter how much adults try to educate them.

Isis, condoms are certainly better than nothing and should always used when having sex outside a monogamous relationship, but would YOU have sex with a person known to be HIV positive as long as he used a condom? I'm just saying....

Of course I wouldn't but that's not the point I"m trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that if you're married, you shouldn't have more than one partner. Even if you're not married, you should still be faithful.

". . . if you're a nurse you know . . ." Sorry, you are wrong about that. Some nurses are the dumbest people in the world.

Look bitch I never said it didn't include myself so why don't you shut the hell up. I am an @!$%#, get over it.

You have a filthy mouth. Shut it.

Filthy mouth? Aww, boohoo, does that bother you? Are you gonna wash my mouth out? Huh? You can't silence me, whether I'm swearing or not. When a person starts spewing out random assumptions about someone they don't even know, like this Missy character was, they should expect a less than positive reaction. Especially when what they're saying is directed as a person like myself, who doesn't put up with bull@!$%# assumptions on her own character.

How about instead of telling me to "shut it" you keep your damn nose out of how I choose to express my views. Jeez, if swear words prompted you to tell me to "shut it", I can only imagine how uptight you are around your family/friends. They're probably sick of you gettin on their ass for their choice of words, too, unless you taught them to be uptight about trivial things the way you are. Like I said, swearing or no swearing, you cannot silence me.

Thank you for that "Politically Correct" objection to something that is invariably derived from Sexual Contact. Maybe you can plan a march on the public mall and we can all attend. Surely, the president will sign some sort of edict eradicating the term "Sexual" when it comes to diseases that are passed in by intercourse or sharing needles.

You are simply wrong about this.

Several STDs are very easily trasnmitted. Hepatitis, for one, and herpes simplex, for another.

In fact bacterial infections of all types are not "blood born" if they were, the infection would be systemic, not localized, and likely lethal.

serious - you ignore the innate immune response as well as the carrier status of an uninfected but COLONIZED host. And if you work in or know anyone who specializes in infetious dz you know their mantra has become: Infectious DZ will get us all in the end. I have a patient who is COLONIZED (Note infected) with the very ubiquitous Pseudomanas Aeriginosa in their urinary tract. This patient's bug is MULTI DRUR RESISTANT and will only respond to FORTAZ (ceftazidime IV). However, when we treat him prior to any hospital procedures his C&S is CLEAN but within a month his Urine C&S FULL of MDR pseudomonas A. It simply 'hides out' somewhere in his parenchema. It is a SUPERBUG. Another patient grows strep pneumonia in her airway ALL THE TIME but has no signs of illness. The dreaded bacterial meningitis is caused by common pathogens but can kill in 48 hours but will only INFECT one or two who grow this pathogen in their nasal membranes.

Infectious DZ is HERE. There are a few new ABX used specifically in cases of life threatening sepsis but they are NOT to be trifled with and one (Xigris) is almost as dangerous as the sepsis itself. Doribax is another, newer ABX which can we hope will offer promise to some superbugs but the truth is that given their rapid generations and easy of morphing from susceptible to resistant, bacteria are sometimes our friends and sometimes our mortal enemies. Blood Borne Pathogen education is VITAL for all health care workers, but important for the general public as well. NOT EVERYONE who encounters a bacteria will succumb to it. This is why a healthy immune response is SO important. Most of us are essentially OK - but there is no guarantee we'll stay that way. BIOFILM is the new buzzword in I.D. communities, especially with superbugs. ID is a huge field, and needs more experts. Any smart young minds out there looking into medicial specialties??? Infectious Disease is SCREAMING FOR Practitioners. Many ID types work in HIV only but we sure could use some others in the field right now to deal with the problem of superbugs. Just a suggestion.

Has anyone told you lately how full of crap you are?

SpiritMatter - You use the word 'moral' as if there's something wrong with morals. Morals are wisdom. That's why we call a lesson learned from an experience 'the moral of the story.' If everyone actually had wisdom and good morals I have no doubt that at least 85% of all the world's problems would disappear overnight. STDs are called STDs because they are sexually transmitted. You also use the word 'religious' as if there's something wrong in and of itself with religion. There's not. A religious way-of-living that treats others the way we want to be treated ourselves is a good thing. A religious way-of-living that treats others as being as important as ourselves and treats all of mankind in a spirit of brotherhood is a good thing.

I want to change at least one sentence to say, "Their transmission is not based on all types of sexual activity but on a subset of types of sexual activity providing potentially successful routes." The S in STD does not reflect the other non-sexual routes and it provides a false arguing point for all the sexually obsessed (about other peoples sexual activities not their own, probably being frustrated and dysfunctional.) prudes that love to guilt trip others.

Okay, but if a disease CAN be spread sexually, then it can be called sexually transmitted. I suppose we could beat the terminology to a fine pulp but who wants to. Anyways, SpiritMatter if you are being responsible I wouldn't worry too much about what other people think of your private life. Of course we might disagree on the definition of responsible. I don't know if you're gay or bisexual or whatever, but I'm straight and I happen to support all rights for gay and bisexual citizens including the right to marry. The only thing I never will support is an anything-goes attitude that affects others negatively (or considers itself above the law either). Sometimes people don't realize how their actions affect others. Anyways, peace out, hasta la vista, catch u on the flip side, etc. Time for sleep. Hey, there's one thing that can prevent diseases too. Too many Americans are sleep deprived. Go to sleep at night America! (Unless u work the night shift) Good night.

Missy this was written before your last comment. Thanks for commenting.

Morals can be good and some can be bad. Wisdom is known by her children. The Christ said we are known by our fruits. If the results of trying to live by a morel law result in the goal, a better life for all, it should qualify as a good moral. If you worship the right God, that God's moral laws should produce good fruit or results when followed. The Creator witnessed to in the Hebrew scriptures gave us ten simple instructions to live by that were not a burden when followed. The problem, ha Mashiach pointed out many times, is that from Moses to the Pharisees, who sat in Moses' seat of authority, men added their judgments which became traditions and were witnessed to in the scriptures. They extapolated the ten instructions to cover many more behaviors then the Creator intended thus making successful obedience to the Creator seem like an impossible task. The self-righteous love to guilt trip others who fail to live by the traditions of men masquerading as the moral law of God.

⁶ He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:`This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.

⁷ And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'

⁸ "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men--

(Mar　7:6-8　NKJ)

⁴ "For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

⁵ "But all their works they do to be seen by men.

(Mat　23:4-5　NKJ)

13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

The Christ tried to get them to think out of their box of doctrinal traditions. He predicted the same thinking would take place all the way up to His return.

(Mat　23:13　NKJ)

2 .......yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.

(Joh　16:2　NKJ)

SpiritMatter - I was about to turn off my computer when I said goodnight before. Just one more comment. I just wanted to say 'I hear you.' I actually happen to be a Christian and I understand exactly what you're saying. I personally limit Christ's teachings to Christ's teachings and differentiate it from human constructs. Also I always say the new testament does not belong to any one group of people. It belongs to humankind. Everyone has a right to read it (hopefully in modern English, which is what I'd always suggest) and understand it for yourself without too much of someone else telling you what you should take away from it other than the basic obvious stuff - especially love others as you love yourself. Treat others as you would want them to treat you.

Just thought I'd let u know I heard u. I hear ya and I 'get' u. Okay this time, reeeeally for real - Good night all! : )

Oh pul-eeze. You generally get them from irresponsible sex. Calling them "blood born diseases" obscures that all-important fact. It's like calling alcoholism "specific liquid substance dependency" or something, which would totally obscure the fact that the problem has anything to do with alcohol, as opposed to water.

There are some who have a hidden death-wish.

Dame Quixote...There is another way to look at your premise. We could be saying thanks to the push to make Sex Education part of the curriculum most parent avoid taking personal responsibility to keep the discussion going at home.

I am with your camp. No part of education ends at the closing bell. All aspects of what are included in school are also included at home and by my personal curriculum. My daughter is aware of the realities of a sexual relationship, social, emotional, physical, risk and personal gratification along with a faith based perspective.

The fact that as a society we have taken one approach does not exclude parents from a personal responsibility and relation to addressing the need, in total, of their children and sex education.

Not only is pregnancy temporary, it is also far less likely to be lethal than some STDs (HIV, for example).

Open discussions with your kids, as difficult and uncomfortable as they can be, are necessary. Refusing to talk about it just pushes the kid to look for answers in other places and less likely to come to you if there is a problem.

A good friend of mine had this policy with her teenagers. There was always a fully stocked box of condoms in the bathroom. She was told by her sons (now in their twenties and thirties that she probably saved half their school from getting STDs - they weren't using them nearly as much as their friends who didn't have access nor a good enough relationship with their own parents to ask, so they handed them out to their friends when needed.

I applaud your efforts!

Good job, Dame Quixote! Education on safe sex is key and works MUCH better than the old abstinence-only education.

Timing is everything. Friday night my daughter was running an errand with me and asked me what "communicable" meant. So I explained and asked where she hear it and in what context. She said it was one of her vocab words in health. So then we got to talking about the latest lesson in co-ed health class. I asked her what she had learned, and God love the child, she shared. They had learned about the three types of sex: "regular, verbal and that really nasty one". I had to ask what verbal sex they were teaching her because well I just might be old but, in my world that used to be a joke. I asked if they were required to participate in the class discussion and she said," She supposed they could but nobody did, except for a couple of the troubled boys.

Apparently, this past week was Sexually transmitted disease week. Oddly enough the curriculum does not go home for parents to view ahead of time or I might just have allowed her to be sick a few days. For instance they were treated to pictures of infected genitalia last week. I suppose that is the new direction of health care we are now going to expect children to self diagnose.

She wanted to know why she had to see pictured of men's infected penises in class? I didn't have an answer for her because in most instances that would be considered exposing minors to pornography. Little did my husband know that through all these years that he has been meticulously modest around my daughter that it would be his tax dollars at work for her to actually see a real penis.

The one that took her over the edge was a photo op of a vagina with bubbles all over it. She asked me what that was and I didn't have the slightest clue. I suppose I am fortunate that I have one sexual partner cause if I got some form of crotch rot I would actually have to defer to my OBGyn and his many years of training.

"The fact that as a society we have taken one approach does not exclude parents from a personal responsibility and relation to addressing the need, in total, of their children and sex education."

Yup. And you had better say that again. Several times. Society may have an unfortunate agenda about pushing incorrect things. But if your kids do not know how to take care of their own bodies by the time they are in their teens-do not blame it on me. I am not a part of your family.

Okay, riddle me this:

I am 56 years old. When I was a teenager, sex education in school consisted of a film on menstruation that was viewed by girls only. Parents said little or nothing.

And yet, I never knew or heard of any girl getting pregnant in my school. Abstinence before marriage was the societal norm. Now I read about a classroom where the kids are discussing how much pubic hair boys prefer on their partners. (The answer: none. The little boys want the little girls to shave it.)

So... more of the same is good, right? More condoms to the rescue. The up side is that if we keep going in this direction, it will be the children raping the pedophiles.

I agree with you about preventing STD's being overlooked, but don't overlook the consequences that come with an unwanted pregnancy. They last 9 months.

I meant they last longer than 9 months

The underline cause is well known.

It sure is... People are having unprotected sex with multiple partners. Blame modern medicine all you like. It comes down to promiscuity for this one since we wouldn't have to treat it so much if people would use some common sense in their sex lives.

if people would use some common sense in their sex lives.

Common sense used with sex went out the window decades ago!!!

As more and more people, with crippled immune systems, are treated to suppress various types of chronic viral infections for a long term maintenance regimentation; they will inbubate the natural selection of the various bacterias they encounter. The antibiotics they take will kill most of the bacteria but the lack of a healthy immune system will pervent them from killing all of the bacteria.

Gonorrhea (Neisseria gonorrhoeae) is a bacteria, not a virus. Viruses have nothing ot do with it. "Crippled immune systems" don't either. It has to do with the bacteria developing resistance to the antibiotics that are commonly used to treat the infection.

Part of the problem lies in US military policies and proceedures.

The US military, aware of the risks (particularly of a west-Pac tour), agressvely screens for and treats STDs. Given the numbers of people involved and their mobility, the result is a wallpapering of antibiotics with a broad brush.

Dame,

You took a hammer and not only hit the nail on the head, you drove it flush with the wood in one swing.

I truly believe that lack of personal responsibility is the root cause of many problems that we have in the world today. Sexual irresponsibility is just another example of a lack of personal responsibility.

Dame, RV

What then was the cause in the good old days? You are acting as if normal( i.e. as people have acted since the dawn of time) human behavior is some new scourge brought about by modern political beliefs. The main reason for the spread of resistance is misuse of antibiotics. Both medical practice and the way we raise livestock share the glory. They are what has greatly changed, not human behavior.

What then was the cause in the good old days? You are acting as if normal( i.e. as people have acted since the dawn of time) human behavior is some new scourge brought about by modern political beliefs. The main reason for the spread of resistance is misuse of antibiotics. Both medical practice and the way we raise livestock share the glory. They are what has greatly changed, not human behavior.

Having sex in and of itself doesn't spread STD's. Having unprotected sex with multiple partners DOES. Huge difference there. I've had unprotected sex with a very select few people who were tested. If I could go back, I would have reduced that number to ONE person. I'm lucky I didn't get an STD. If you want to go back to how nature intended it...

-People with severe allergies would simply die off.

-Our lifespan would be reduced.

-We'd be much filthier.

-Polio would make a comeback.

I think being sexually promiscuous isn't a responsible way to live. It's risky, you don't know what is going on with every single partner and your risk for a bad egg is much higher than those in committed monogamous relationships.

nutgrape,

I guess what I am saying is that if I have unprotected sex and catch incurable gonorrhea, it is not the fault of antibiotics, it is my own fault.

I am not pretending to be completely innocent. When I was younger, it could have happened to me, but I would not have blamed it on antibiotics. I would have blamed it on myself - in other words, taking personal responsibility.

We all need to take responsibility for our actions. The lesson in this article shouldn't be "we should never have used antibiotics," it should be "gonorrhea is spread by having unprotected sex with multiple partners and you should avoid this behavior."

Most of you are focusing on HIV, which is very difficult to catching without a dramatic one-on-one exposure. Hepatitis C is as deadly, is very ease to catch, is just as incurable and requires the same antiviral regimentation. You also focusing only on transition of the decease, which was not the point I was making. If you rule out gross negligence, malpractice and deliberate transmission; practically the only way to catch HIV is by risky sex or intravenous drug use. I did not blame medicine for that transmission. The point I was making: It would be better to focus on trying to find cures for these viral deceases, rather than spend the money on developing long term antiviral regimentations to control the viral infections once they are caught. The side affect of incubate deadlier and deadlier bacteria is just too devastating for the general population.

Reesa 909: You appearently misread what I wrote. I find it odd; a person can transcibe something and not comprehend the meaning of what they are typing.

R. O. Davis, Hep B is a sexual transmitted disease. Hep C is contracted by blood to blood infection.

Stc: There is A : B : and C types of Hepatitis. Both B and C are incurable. C types is a catch-all category for the virues that are neither A nor B. Type A is most often a food born virus. A person will normally get over it in a year or so. With both B & C Hepatiris, a person can easially catch it without direct physical contact with the carrier. Shaving with a carrier's razer, even without cutting oneself, can transmit the decease. Both type B & C can be transmitted sexually. Of the three, type C Hepatitis is far more aggressive and deadly. There are vacinations for Hepititis. Type A is one shot. Type B is two shots. I believe there is vacination for type C, but I do not believe it covers the full spectrum of viruses in the catch-all group.

It's very rare to get hep C from a monogamous heterosexual relationship. Ive been married for 24 yrs & my wife doesn't have it. It is usually homosexual behavior when they say they caught it from sex.

The thread seems to have deteriorated. There is an obvious disconnect here about modes of transmission vis a vis the various types of Hepatitis. May I suggest a visit to various sites on the web which are targeted to diseases of the liver which deal with this inherently confusing subject. However this thread deals with resistant bacteria - and the need to understand the method by which we can acquire these pathogens. Many people now harbor MDR bugs, some do NOT know it and it is prudent to become educated in the realities of current infectious disease. If you wish to know how to avoid becoming a resevoir for multi drug resistant bacteria. It's simple. But denial and glib, flippant retorts only prove the point.............ignorance of the facts does NOTHING to alter them.

Nightcloud, that is so true. But think about it. If you knew that a fire was raging in your neighborhood, would you 'educate' the youngsters about the fire, suit them out in fire-resistant outfits and leave it at that when they headed towards the fire, telling yourself that they were protected? Would not your sense of danger move you to warn them also to steer clear of the fire zone? Would that be because you doubted that the outfits would give some protection, or because you knew it could not give them 100% protection? Is there any comparison with the use of condoms?

I doubt that any parent can push the use of condoms any more than the companies selling the product is advertising it. Just look around the checkout counters in most business places, and you will find an array of names, flavors, and brands. Added to that, some schools have taken on the responsibility of handing out condoms faster than they are capable of handing out diplomas, and that, with the support of some parents who feel overwhelmed by the task of sex education in the home.

So how is it that STD, unwanted, and teenage pregnancies are still on the rise? Is everyone who is sexually active, afflicted with an STD, which along with gonorrhea now includes the deadly HIV-AIDS, and the oft overlooked chlamydia? Could some of the reasons have anything to do with the points made in the article from the link below?

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Teens+condoms+more+than+young+adults+study/1978930/story.html

As a health care provider I confront the difficulty frequently of the patient who insists that they want ABX for a viral infection. While I have been around long enough to stand my ground with those who 'demand' an RX - others who are young and less experienced behind the RX pad have given ABX where no bacterial infection exists. This is part of the dilemma. Those who do not FINISH their ABX are also contributing to a problem. The bug then gains the ability to RESIST the drug and becomes Multi Drug Resistant. Vis a Vis the MDR bugs - frankly, there's little any single individual will do to make a difference. Some people will die and others will not. In the hideous slime of the Black Death during the middle ages there were people living in the midst of the bacteria and DID NOT SUCCUMB. This is the fuction of the immune response. It will keep you alive (or not).

Are you being serious?

Are you being serious?

TOTALLY!!!

Isabella: Please tell me your source for HGH being a causative factor in obesity. Nwever heard of that

Isabella-1133504 They just do not get it.

Harry, I actually appreciate what you have said. I know it was mostly in jest, but it just goes to show that you actually love and respect your wife. You're not even thinking of cheating on her, it didn't even cross your mind. That says so much. I really admire you for that.

First of all the number of people serving in the US military who travel all over and have sex with locals where they are and then return to the US is easily a bigger problem than illegals (who rarely hook up with people outside their circle for fear of deportation).

Secondly, LEGAL immigrants from places like eastern Europe, Russia and Asia far out-number illegals - and are just as likely to be carrying bugs.

The problem of multi-drug resistant TB in NYC is due almost entirely to LEGAL immigrants from Eastern Europe and Russia - and you don't have to sleep with someone who has TB to get it. You can just ride on the same plane or subway!!!

Liberals have done everything they can to discredit Christians.

WTF!!!!

Cyfi: Sorry about your Mom. C. diffical or MRSA? Both are on the tip of being incurable.

Serious, you are overstating. It is only in the Northeast where legal immigration surpasses illiegal immigration.

Sex is not a sin. It is not shameful. It is not dirty. It's as natural as breathing. it is how the human race lives on. People just need to use protection and regularly get tested for STIs/STDs. People need to stop shaming sex, because it isn't a sin and they won't go to hell for it.

Sorry isis - u are incorrect. Not that I agree with the way 'OnlyJesusSaves' said what s/he said. But you cannot be so vague. You say "Sex...is not shameful...not dirty." The fact is you should have said 'sex in and of itself is not shameful...dirty.' Because A LOT of sex that is engaged in in our pornographied, corporate-entertainment-industry-driven world IS shameful and IS dirty and is actually inexcusable. People do NOT "JUST need to use protection and regularly get tested..." People need to realize that what they are doing is the thing that actually can create an innocent human life.

It also can change adults' lives in profound ways. It is not just fun and games and anything goes. Add this to the list of what is needed along with protection and testing: being in a committed marriage based on mutual love and respect. People do not need to "stop shaming sex..." Where do you see this happening? You sound like you are living in 1930's America or another planet. The fact is we went from a society that was too averse to discussing the topic to a society where anything goes (after the 1960's) which is ridiculous. When u say people need to stop shaming sex, it sounds like u think u live in 1930s America. U are completely wrong. What we DO need to do is make people have an appropriate shame if they are engaging in shameful, promiscuous, irresponsible, self-centered, anything-goes behavior. That's exactly what our country DOES need now. Millions of us know that our country has reached a line in the sand when it comes to anything goes behavior. We are sick and tired of people with an anything goes attitude like ignorant Erika Badu. She has supposedly artistic 'feelings' so she thinks she should be allowed to strip at a public place and 'educate' everyone's children around her to her ignorant, trashy ways. Those anything goes attitudes have been fostered by a pornographied, corporate entertainment industry in our country.

You are vague - maybe even purposely vague - in your statement that "...sex...isn't a sin..." Those of us who actually do believe in the concept of sin know that sex IN AND OF ITSELF is not a sin. We never said it was. PROMISCUOUS, self-centered, irresponsible sex is what is a sin because it is SELF centered and irresponsible towards others. Promiscuity is responsible for hundreds of thousands of innocent children being from broken homes - with all that is increased along with that. So many innocent children from broken homes know they were just an afterthought and live childhoods where they are treated like it. They are more likely to be abused and neglected and live in poverty, etc., etc. That is INEXCUSABLE. Promiscuity is also responsible for disease transmission and negative effects on the lives of adults as well.

jesus died because he had syphillis

Well a lot of the sex that is engaged in in pornography is NOT shameful and inexcusable, and the only reason that you think it is is because you decided to buy into what's "normal" and what's not, and now you're stuck in a stupid way of thinking that anything different is bad. Shame on you.

And who said you have to be married to have sex? I disagree with that, as long as both partners are prepared for WHATEVER consequences of what they're doing.

What do you mean where do I see the shaming of sex happening? You'd be suprised. There's a lot of overprotective, extreme parents nowdays, who teach their kids nothing. I NEVER SAID I THINK I LIVE IN 1930s AMERICA JACKASS.

You're right about promiscuity having to stop, because that is trashy, and people need to start being prepared for what might happen if they have sex, but the facts are, there are still extremely conservative people out there, who still believe that anything sexual is bad, and I think that the abstinence only programs support that backwards way of thinking. That's what I meant when I said that sex needs to stop being shamed, I meant the people who still believe sex is shameful.

isis-1618599 you are very wrong about one thing: abstinence only is not a point of view that anything sexual is bad.

I meant that like this: teaching kids abstinence only leaves them unprepared to deal with STDs/STIs, or pregnancy. All they'll know is "abstinence only", nothing about sexual responsibility and sexual health.

I think it does send a message that sex before marriage is shameful or dirty, and that's the wrong idea, if you ask me.

You say nothing about the emotional aspect of teen sex. Our kids need to learn more than the physical consequences. Topics such as how would you feel after having sex to see your partner walking in school holding someone else's hand and ignoring you. How about if the boy tells all his friends or never calls you again, posts details on Facebook, or the girl laughs at your fumbling attempts. Just because their bodies are ready for sex doesn't mean their brains are.

Slides showing different STD horrors work as well as the mangled accident victims they show just before the prom. Everyone says, "That won't happen to me."

Yeah, well guess what, I never said there wasn't an emotional aspect either. People need to be able to have complete trust for each other in a relationship, and if they don't then they shouldn't be having sex. And young adults ought to wait, but hell, some of them actually think that they're mature enough to engage in sexual activity. The fact is, those ones are going to have sex, and a lot of them don't care about the emotional aspect(which is very irresponsible), so it is inevitable. Since they are going to have sex anyways, they need to be fully educated about birth control, STIs/STDs, and how to prevent them, and they also need to be completely aware that it could happen to them.

isis-1618599 You do not want to see a slideshow of all of the std's that actually exist.

fgh: I already saw one of those slideshows in anatomy during my senior year of high school.

the US Military

Classy.

Classy.

There you have it, John Classy Mayer!!!

Dang dude....publishing your real name huh?? He's single, girls....take a number.

John Mayer-- you had it four times? That just shows that the people that get it aren't terribly smart. Surely you must have realized how you were getting it???? DUH!

Those VC hookers must have been something else. I take it you were a slow learner, although if I was stuck on a metal box in the middle of the ocean surrounded by men all damn day, I guess a few infected hookers would have been a welcomed sight.

Afterall, John Mayer does not find nature to be shameful or dirty.

Yes, the primary objective is to have children, but not always. You can't possibly believe that there aren't couples who want to enjoy sex without worrying about pregnancy.

What do kids have to do with it you ask? Well maybe I should've said teens. They have a lot to do with it, as they are all very curious and want to know more, and yes experience it. They need to be taught safe sex.

And as far as whose responsibility it is to teach kids about sex, the parents should have the talk with their children when they feel the time is right, and should allow their kids to learn about it in school as well.

Dolphin2 - You make some very good points and I agree with everything u said - except if u are saying there should be no sex education in schools. You have a very well-written comment post in every way except that one.

There are many, many kids that would not get correct education on the subject in time if it was left completely up to parents. Pity the poor girl whose mother passed away and is raised only by her father. Come on, now. Especially if it's not a good relationship with that parent and they can hardly talk about anything. What girl wants to get her sex ed from her father. Get real. Most kids are not born into families where they have the greatest relationship with levelheaded, mature parents, either. Responsible sex education has prevented many an unwanted, innocent child from being born into horrible, dysfunctional situations where they would suffer. If a kid has the responsible, fact-based education from school and the right kind of education at home, that is the best of both worlds. If you raise up your kids in the way that they should go, they will not depart from it when they are grown.

I would also say Americans need to get back to realizing there is such a thing as age-appropriateness in entertainment as in everything else. Kids should not be exposed to all the trash they are exposed to by parents that turn their kids' minds over to the corporate entertainment industry. Learn how to put blocks from pornography on the internet, too, and experts in child safety say do not let your kids have a computer in any area except a family area.

Good night! :)

You make some very important points. What is clear about all this though, is that this is a much bigger problem than just dispensing condoms, or teaching sex education in schools. It is true that their are some fantastic teachers who would maybe put their life on the line to protect a child. But have you ever heard of any incident where a student and a teacher have become sexually involved? What do you think might be the cause of this?

Clearly, the values the teacher lives by, as well as the values the parents live by, will be a determining factor in the outcome of the education given. However, if parents take their responsibility seriously, there should be no need to abdicate it to the teachers. Remember, parents have access to written information that teachers will likely use to dispense sex education. It cannot be overemphasized that home, is where learning begins, and ends.

Failure to accept this fact, is one reason why there are so many delinquent kids roaming the streets. It is a chain reaction. The male and female who wanted to throw off all restraint, and satisfy their sexual curiosity, maybe under the influence of some mind-altering substance, either failed to use, ran out of, or had an 'accident' with the condom, resulting in the birth of an unwanted child, who was not expected to be a part of the mix.

Not being mentally prepared to handle this burdensome responsibility, the child, and subsequent children, will be left alone, or with anyone available until time to go to school. Only then does education begin. If the child can't read, it's the teachers fault. If the child misbehaves, it's the other, sometimes equally 'unwanted children' who are to be blamed. When the school authorities, helpless, frustrated, and unprepared for the children they find in the classrooms, decides to expel them from the school, that is when these 'parents' usually act.

They will shout the loudest about their child being discriminated against. Their 'rights' are being denied. How can the school, the school, the school, do such a thing and be allowed to get away with it? How dare the school send them home, when no one at the 'house' wants them around? Can you see an end to the chain?

Why should it be a problem for a father to talk to a daughter as far as what he logically knows about sex? Or a mother to her son?? Now it is clear what is wrong with all of this 'sex for enjoyment'. Babies are accidentally born-and as implied by the object of my questions, those would-be parents are never ready to raise them.

Shall the vexing twaddle of one-note fanatics never end?

lol

judy vest

Bravo! Short and spicy! I couldn't have said it better!

has anyone told you what a horses a-s you are?

I would not expect so much from this so soon.