STD Rates High Among College Students

STD Rates High Among College Students
By Erika Rohrssen
Published: Wednesday, April 27, 2005


The growth of sexually transmitted diseases has become increasingly larger among college students in the United States. According to the New York State Department of Health, one in five teens gets a sexually transmitted disease each year in the United States. Also, the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York stated that, "nationally, nearly one million young women under age 20 become pregnant each year. That means close to 2800 teens get pregnant each day." Although these statistics are escalating each year, many Catholic institutions do not provide students with the forms of contraception that can help prevent these statistics from increasing.

Manhattan College justifies its reasoning not to provide condoms or any other form of birth control to its students by standing behind the teachings of the Catholic Church, that it is a sin to engage in sexual activity before marriage.

In an informal survey on the Quad 39 students out of 45 students admitted to engaging in sexual activity while on campus, even though this is against the rules of Manhattan College. In this same survey, students were asked, "Do you think the nurse should provide condoms and the morning after pill?" The majority of the students polled, 39, said that they felt the nurse should provide these forms of contraception; three of these students were also students that said they did not engage in sexual activity while living on campus. One sexually active student said that the nurse should not provide these forms of contraception; four students chose not to comment on the subject, and another wrote in that while condoms should be provided, the morning after pill should not.

According to the Manhattan College's nurse practitioner, Katherine Kyle, the reason Manhattan does not provide contraception is not provided because, "it is the policy of Manhattan that students should not be engaging in sexual activity while on campus." While the Health Services Staff is not permitted to provide any form of contraception, Kyle reinforced the fact that, "students can come and talk to me about any problems that they are experiencing or with any questions they need me to answer to increase their own knowledge on the subject [of STD's or pregnancy]." Kyle also stated that she answers questions about sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies at least once a week, but she added, "It is usually a lot more than that."

Stanford University is not STD-free zone

By Cassidy Deline
Staff Writer The Stanford Daily
Wednesday, April 27, 2005


When that pick-up line finally works, contracting a sexually transmitted disease is likely to be the last thing on students? minds. Perhaps this is the problem. Medical professionals are increasingly concerned about the rise in people afflicted with sexually transmitted diseases, especially in genital warts, herpes and chlamydia.
Nationwide, it is estimated that one out of every four potential sexual partners is likely to have a sexually transmitted disease. One in 500 is likely to carry HIV.

While Stanford keeps no statistics due to confidentiality, Vaden Student Health Center estimates the Stanford population to be on track with national norms.

?People assume Stanford students to be more educated, but that doesn?t necessarily correlate to practice,? said senior Cat Alquero, who works at the Sexual Health Peer Resource Center at Vaden.

Still many students assume that the Stanford bubble is more-or-less a STD-free zone.

?I think there is this conception that Stanford is somehow safer because of this mentality that everyone is smart and well-educated,? freshman Jess Schafer said. ?There is also the sense that there is less dating, less sex and therefore less STDs.?

However, less dating does not necessarily mean less sexual activity among those who are sexually active, just a lack of monogamy.

In fact, Donnovan Somera Yisrael, a sexual health educator with Health Promotion Services, also a part of Vaden, points out that fewer relationships often leads to more partners, potentially increasing the likelihood of contracting a disease.

However, according to Yisrael, it does not matter if you do not know your partner?s last name, if he or she is drunk or sober or your third partner that week, as long as proper precautions are taken.

Biologically ? psychological ramifications aside ? you are safer hooking up with multiple people if you consistently and successfully use condoms than if you are in a monogamous relationship for years without being tested, he said.

?It has nothing to do with how the hook-up happens,? Yisrael said. ?An STD has nothing to do with whether it?s a random hook up or your husband of 20 years. All we care about, from a biological sense, is whether people are using protection.?

Condoms are the first recommendation for protecting yourself from STDs, or now commonly referred to as STIs, since many ailments take the form of infections. Alternatives include abstinence or monogamy in conjunction with testing.

?The most effective way to stop STDs is the using contraception,? Alquero said. ?If we want to reduce the rate of STDs we need to increase education on contraception and de-stigmatize any negative perceptions that may exist about using protection.?

While condoms are a student?s best weapon against STDs, many still hook up worry-free, believing they are protected by the common birth control pill.

?I think that people are more worried about pregnancies than STDs,? senior Kate Berglund said. ?So if they are on birth control and drunk they don?t really think about it.?

Yisrael agreed that students focus more on the threat of pregnancy that contracting chlamydia.

?There is the idea that no matter who you are you can get somebody pregnant, but with STDs people think of it differently,? he said. ?You think you know the person; they are a Stanford student; you know what car they drive, what frat they are in and feel safer with them and feel less of a need to use a condom.?

No matter how well students may think they know their partners, Somera emphasized the importance of being tested regularly.

Students have two options: either confidential, comprehensive screening through medical services at Vaden or anonymous HIV testing upstairs in the SHPRC through the HIV*PACT program. Health Promotion Service also offers individual consultations to discuss concerns about sexual health and relationships in a confidential environment.

75 percent of condoms in India used for other than sex

75 percent of condoms in India used for other than sex

Associated Press
Apr. 25, 2005 09:15 AM

NEW DELHI - People in India are making good use of their condoms, but not in the way you might think.

Only a quarter of condoms made in India are used for sex. The Economic Times newspaper reports the rest are used to make saris, toys and bathroom slippers.

Sari weavers put the condoms on their thread spools. The lubricant on the prophylactics rubs off on the thread, making it move faster through the sewing machines.

India manufactures more than a billion condoms a year, which are supposed to be used for disease prevention and to curb population growth.

New Debate Is Sought on Use of Condoms to Fight AIDS

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Published: April 22, 2005 International Herald Tribune

ROME, April 21 - Pope Benedict XVI is known to be conservative on social issues, and no one expects his Roman Catholic Church to soften its opposition to birth control. Still, a rising number of Catholics, in the Vatican and outside, are urging the new pope to revisit what was probably his predecessor's most divisive position - his opposition to condom use in the fight against AIDS.

As Pope John Paul II fell ill and his influence waned, a number of high church officials and theologians began tentatively - but publicly - to suggest that the church should accept condoms in certain circumstances to stem the spread of AIDS, as a pro-life medical intervention.

"I believe condoms need to be debated, and I believe theologically their use can be justified, to prevent the transmission of a death-dealing virus," said Bishop Kevin Dowling of Rustenburg, South Africa, an impoverished diocese of miners and poor women who sell their bodies to feed their children, where H.I.V. rates in prenatal clinics approach 50 percent.

"I see these young women and their babies, and the desperation and the suffering, and I think, 'What would Jesus want?' " he said in an interview. "There's no way he could condemn someone like this."

The new pope has said nothing about the issue. But the bishop said, "At the very least, I think it would be healthy for the church to discuss this openly, to be humble and to be seen struggling in the face of this very serious disease."

In much of the developing world, Catholic charities and local churches provide much of the medical treatment and care, so the Vatican's views have enormous impact. Official church policy is that the spread of AIDS should be fought with sexual abstinence and fidelity in marriage.

Several cardinals have also implicitly - if not explicitly - challenged Vatican policy in supporting the limited use of condoms to combat AIDS in recent months. Theologically, they contend that in such situations, condoms are lifesaving medical devices rather than a form of contraception.

When it comes to thinking about condoms, "what seems to be happening is that these practical applications are getting more discussions, and going on at a higher level," said Brian Johnstone, a professor of moral philosophy at the Alfonsian Academy in Rome. "A lot of high-level people are suddenly speaking out, saying that condoms could be justified in certain difficult situations."

In an interview with an Italian news agency in February, Cardinal Georges Cottier of Switzerland said that "the use of condoms in some situations can be considered morally legitimate," particularly to stem the spread of H.I.V. and AIDS in Africa.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, the Vatican's top health official, has said twice in recent interviews that it would be allowable for a woman married to a man with H.I.V. to use condoms "in self-defense" just as the church found it acceptable to use deadly force to fend off an attack.

International health officials, who have clashed with the church over its no-condom policy, say they have seen hints of movement recently. While the church preaches abstinence to prevent the spread of AIDS, medical groups and many governments regard condom use as the only method that reliably prevents sexual transmission of the virus that causes it.

"What is really good is that on the ground we are now starting to see a lot of debates about condoms among the clergy," said Dr. Peter Piot, executive director of the United Nations AIDS program, noting that he was "surprised" this February to have been invited as the guest of honor at a Vatican conference on health care.

Dr. Piot said there was no way to estimate how many people had become infected with H.I.V. because Catholic teachings had persuaded them not to use condoms, but he said, "When bishops in Latin America or Africa speak out against condoms, that must have a serious negative impact."

Dr. Laura Ciaffi, adviser on H.I.V. for Doctors Without Borders-Switzerland, said, "What happens in practice depends a lot on local authorities."

Nonoxynol-9 may contribute to STD infections

Nonoxynol-9 may contribute to STD infections

By Cassie Blombaum
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Thursday, April 21, 2005

A frequently used spermicidal gel found in many condoms can cause irritation when the user is engaging in anal sex, according to the World Health Organization.

Once thought to prevent HIV and AIDS, Nonoxynol-9 is a lubricant that happens to have spermicidal properties, said Lee Ann Hamilton, a health educator at Campus Health Service.

"If used in gels and creams, (Nonoxynol-9) kills sperm," Hamilton said. "It also has viricidal and bactericidal properties."

Hamilton also said Nonoxynol-9 may have some negative effects on persons engaging in vaginal sex as well, but such effects are rare.

"It may irritate mucous membranes in some people, increasing the risk for STD transmission," Hamilton said. "In uninfected, monogamous couples using Nonoxynol-9 for pregnancy prevention, this is not an issue or risk."

Gary Rhine, a grant coordinator at the Gay Men's Health Project at the Southern Arizona Aids Foundation, said that by itself, Nonoxynol-9 works great as a spermicide but it does affect those engaging in anal sex.

"When a lubricant with Nonoxynol-9 is used for anal sex, the N-9 actually irritates the sensitive tissue around the anus and removes or eats away layers of tissue, making the tissue susceptible to HIV," Rhine said.

Floyd Meeks, a program coordinator for HIV prevention at the Pima County Health Department, said Nonoxynol-9 is a microbicide that kills bacteria and viruses.

"Because Nonoxynol-9 is a form of detergent, contact with Nonoxynol-9 can kill bacteria and viruses on your skin, but it also irritates the skin and causes an inflammation response."

Meeks said that at one time, Nonoxynol-9 was thought to be helpful in preventing HIV and sexually transmitted diseases because it had been shown to kill HIV in a test tube. For some time it was added to condoms to improve their effectiveness in preventing STDs.

When tested in people, however, Meeks said Nonoxynol-9 had negative results.

"When it got into the real world, many studies, including one with sex workers in Africa, found that women who used condoms with N-9 had more genital inflammation," Meeks said.

The Pima County Health Department no longer hands out condoms with Nonoxynol-9, but other condoms are available.

"As part of the public health mission of the Health Department, we give out condoms freely to people 13 years old and older."

Rhine said the Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation does not distribute condoms that contain N-9.

"We do not distribute condoms with N-9," Rhine said. "Most responsible agencies will not do that."

Hamilton said that Campus Health Service also stopped giving away condoms with Nonoxynol-9 a while ago.

"We do not give away condoms with Nonoxynol-9 since this lubricant has not been shown to reduce STD transmission," Hamilton said. "We have not given away N-9 condoms for many years."

Hamilton said that after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended years ago not to use condoms with Nonoxynol-9, Campus Health stopped giving them away.

"The CDC recommended it years and years ago," Hamilton said. "I give out condoms at educational presentations but none of them have nonoxynol-9."

Nevertheless, Hamilton said Campus Health does sell condoms with Nonoxynol-9 and students have the responsibility to choose the appropriate condom.

"We sell a wide variety of condoms, with and without Nonoxynol-9," Hamilton said. "Students can choose the most appropriate condoms for their situation."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nonoxynol-9 should be used in conjunction with other forms of contraceptives, but it is not an effective means to prevent STDs.

Nonoxynol-9, however, may have some benefits, Hamilton said.

"N-9 seems to make sense for people wanting a little extra protection against unplanned pregnancy," Hamilton said. "But they've never been proven to actually increase pregnancy prevention effectiveness."

Hamilton said all condoms are an important way to ensure safe sex.

"Next to abstinence from sexual intercourse, condoms are the next best way to reduce the risks of STD transmission," Hamilton said. "Whether it has N-9 or not, using a condom will help reduce your chances of getting an STD."

Hamilton reiterated it is the condom in and of itself that helps ensure safe sex, not the lubricant found in it, and thus UA students should always use them for protection.

"Condoms - with or without spermicide - help to reduce the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases," Hamilton said. "They reduce the risks of vaginal, anal, or oral sex. Of course they are a very effective means of pregnancy prevention."

According to the 2004 Campus Health Health & Wellness Survey, 60 percent of females and 63 percent of males on campus usually or always use a condom.

Hamilton said she recommends buying condoms with recognizable labels that have latex and a reservoir tip.

"I recommend staying with bigger name brands," Hamilton said. "I don't recommend kinds you get in novelty stores, like glow in the dark and edible condoms."

Water-based lubricants should be used along with condoms, Hamilton said.

"Something like KY liquid or Astroglide," Hamilton said. "They will help reduce friction during sex and will reduce a condom failing."

FDA Failure To Update Nonoxynol-9 Labels To Mention Increased Risk of Contracting HIV Puts People At Risk, GAO Report Says

FDA Failure To Update Nonoxynol-9 Labels To Mention Increased Risk of Contracting HIV Puts People At Risk, GAO Report Says
13 Apr 2005

FDA's failure to update the labels of products containing the spermicide nonoxynol-9 to warn of the increased risk of contracting HIV among women who use the products puts consumers at risk, according to a... Government Accountability Office report scheduled to be released on Tuesday, the Washington Post reports (Connolly, Washington Post, 4/12). Nonoxynol-9 works as a vaginal contraceptive by damaging the cell membranes of sperm, and some laboratory evidence has shown that the spermicide damages the cell walls of some organisms that cause sexually transmitted diseases and is active against some bacteria and viruses. However, according to data presented in January 2003, nonoxynol-9's membrane-damaging effect also can harm the cell lining of the vagina and cervix, possibly increasing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, among women who use it (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 3/24/04). Although the U.S. surgeon general, FDA, CDC and NIH in 1988 said that condoms with nonoxynol-9 might provide additional protection against HIV, CDC in 2000 revised its guidelines and warned that the spermicide "may actually increase the risk of contracting HIV when used frequently." FDA in 2003 concluded that nonoxynol-9 might increase a person's risk of contracting HIV, but so far the agency has not issued new consumer warning labels, according to the Post.

Report Details
The new report -- which was prepared at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) -- criticizes FDA for not publicizing scientific evidence and information showing that nonoxynol-9 does not protect against HIV. "Since FDA is still in the process of completing warning label changes for N-9 vaginal contraceptive products and condoms, the public may be left in doubt about the appropriate uses of these products until FDA finalizes these warnings," the report says, adding, "Further, the public may be at risk if the products are used inappropriately." FDA said it could not comment on the GAO report or proposed label changes, the Post reports.

Coburn Comments
"The FDA is derelict," Coburn said, adding, "They've known nonoxynol-9 increases your risk of HIV, and every day they don't put that out they are harming people." He also said that FDA and CDC have an "institutional bias" toward "safe sex rather than responsible sexual activity," adding, "My definition of responsible sexual activity is monogamy with limited partners and delayed onset of sexual activity." In the past, Coburn has encouraged health agencies to "cast condoms in a dramatically different light," saying that public health officials should warn consumers about the misuse of condoms and their failure rates for preventing pregnancy and STDs, according to the Post. For example, Coburn has said that no evidence exists to show that condoms protect against certain STDs, including human papillomavirus, which causes most cases of cervical cancer (Washington Post, 4/12). NIH in 2001 released a report saying that there is insufficient evidence that male latex condoms prevent transmission of STDs other than HIV and gonorrhea (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 6/20/01).

Some Companies No Longer Use N-9
The World Health Organization and UNAIDS also have raised concerns about the use of nonoxynol-9 in condoms. As a result, several companies -- including SSL International, the maker of Durex condoms; Johnson & Johnson, which makes K-Y brand personal lubricant; and Mayer Labs, which makes the Kimono brand of condom -- have stopped manufacturing condoms with nonoxynol-9. CondomDepot.com is also the First and still only, Retailer to remove products containing N-9 from its shelves in late 2003. (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 1/21/04).

GAO Criticizes FDA On Spermicide Labels That Omit AIDS Risk

GAO Criticizes FDA On Spermicide Labels That Omit AIDS Risk

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 12, 2005; Page A19

The failure of the Food and Drug Administration to update warning labels on products containing the spermicide Nonoxynol-9 may increase the risk of contracting the AIDS virus among those who use the products, analysts at the Government Accountability Office have found.

In a report scheduled for release today, Congress's investigative arm traced the confused history of the spermicide known as N-9 and took the FDA to task for not publicizing scientific evidence that it does not protect against HIV, contrary to earlier studies.


"Since FDA is still in the process of completing warning label changes for N-9 vaginal contraceptive products and condoms, the public may be left in doubt about the appropriate uses of these products until FDA finalizes these warnings," the GAO concluded. "Further, the public may be at risk if the products are used inappropriately."

The FDA said it could not comment on the proposed label changes or the GAO report.

The analysis was prepared at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who said the findings reflect an "institutional bias" at the FDA and its sister agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, toward "safe sex rather than responsible sexual activity."

In his view, "the safe-sex mantra says there are no consequences to sexual activity as long as you use a condom," Coburn said. "That's not true."

Coburn has been pressing public health agencies to cast condoms in a dramatically different light, arguing that medical experts need to warn the public about possible misuse and failure rates. There is no evidence to date, he noted, that condoms protect against certain sexually transmitted diseases, such as the human papillomavirus.

"My definition of responsible sexual activity is monogamy with limited partners and delayed onset of sexual activity," said Coburn, who is a physician. "I can guarantee, you won't get a sexually transmitted disease if you are monogamous and your partner is monogamous."

In 1988, the surgeon general announced that condoms containing N-9 might provide additional protection against HIV. Health agencies such as the FDA, the CDC and the National Institutes for Health followed suit. A decade later, however, the CDC, armed with more research, revised its guidelines, and by 2000, CDC publications warned that "N-9 may actually increase the risk of contracting HIV when used frequently."

Although the FDA reached a similar conclusion two years ago, the agency has yet to issue new warning labels.

"The FDA is derelict," Coburn said in an interview. "They've known Nonoxynol-9 increases your risk of HIV, and every day they don't put that out, they are harming people."

Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, agreed that the FDA has a responsibility to disseminate the latest information on N-9. But she said the spermicide is safe for women who use it to prevent pregnancy.

Three years ago, Planned Parenthood stopped producing condoms with N-9 "and we stopped recommending Nonoxynol-9 in any way to protect against sexually transmitted infections," she said. "It's disappointing FDA has not taken note of the fact that in certain circumstances Nonoxynol-9 can increase the transmissability of HIV."

Problems with N-9 are not a reason to discontinue using condoms or spermicidal products, she said. According to the NIH, condoms "provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses."

Fed's Sex Ed Website Misleads

Fed's Sex Ed Website Misleads

April 11, 2005


(The American Prospect) This column was written by Chris Mooney.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, when a profound schism erupted between the American scientific community and the Bush administration, a key point of contention concerned the alteration of sexual health information on several government Web sites. A National Cancer Institute fact sheet temporarily suggested the possibility of a link between abortion and breast cancer (scientists say with near unanimity that there isn't one). A statement explaining why educating teens about how to use condoms does not increase sexual activity was deleted from a Centers for Disease Control fact sheet. And so forth.

If science defenders were angry about these actions, they ought to be on an absolute rampage over a new Web site, www.4parents.gov, sponsored by three separate branches of the Department of Health and Human Services: the Office of Public Health and Science, the Office of Population Affairs, and the Public Health Service. The site is described as "part of a new national public education campaign" to help parents help their teenagers make "the healthiest choices." "Part of a new misinformation campaign" would be more accurate. A massive list of sexual health research and advocacy groups and other organizations have slammed the site, arguing that it amounts to a thinly veiled brief for pro-life moral values and abstinence education. An analysis of the site's content shows that their complaints are more than justified.

As the sexual health organizations complain, 4parents.gov delivers a stealth dose of pro-life advocacy. The site defines pregnancy, for instance, as a process "that begins when an egg cell and a sperm cell unite." Actually, not every fertilized egg implants in the wall of the uterus, meaning that a better definition of pregnancy would probably emphasize implantation, not fertilization. The site also refers to a fertilized egg shortly after implantation as an "unborn child," a phrase that appears repeatedly on 4parents.gov.

In order to make its pro-abstinence case, 4parents.gov also presents selective or distorted information about the effectiveness of condoms, a common tick on the religious right. The site takes every opportunity to downplay condom efficacy, with passages such as the following:

Studies suggest that condoms, when used consistently and correctly, offer significant risk reduction (80-87 percent) for HIV/AIDS. Condoms provide less risk reduction for other sexually transmitted diseases. Research indicates significant risk reduction for HIV to almost none for others (e.g., HPV).

Here, 4parents.gov appears to be relying exclusively on published studies that positively prove condom effectiveness for certain diseases, while conveniently ignoring basic common sense. What the site neglects to tell American parents is the following: According to the National Institutes of Health, condoms "provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses." Because of this characteristic, continues the NIH, there is "a strong probability of condom effectiveness when used correctly" both for diseases spread by discharges (including gonorrhea and chlamydia), and for diseases spread by skin-to-skin contact (including herpes, syphilis, and HPV), so long as the condom covers the infected area.

In short, even though the effectiveness of condoms may not have been proven in rigorous studies for all conditions, we nevertheless know that condoms provide a strong barrier against STD transmission.

And even as 4parents.gov demands rigorous proof of condom effectiveness for every individual sexually transmitted disease, it simultaneously celebrates abstinence on completely idealized grounds. Cynthia Dailard of The Alan Guttmacher Institute has observed that abstinence advocates frequently contrast theoretically perfect use of abstinence with actual real life condom failure rates, thus comparing "apples and oranges." 4parents.gov is no exception. The site refers to abstinence as "without question, the healthiest choice for adolescents." But as a method of disease prevention, abstinence -- just like condoms -- only works if you actually use it properly. And there's abundant evidence that despite the best of intentions, "abstinence" fails because many teens just don't stick to it.

For instance, 4parents.gov lists a "pledge of virginity" as a "protective factor" against risky sexual behaviors. It does not bother to cite actual research on how virginity pledgers behave. In a recent study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, Yale sociologist Hannah Bruckner and Columbia sociologist Peter Bearman found that teenagers who took these pledges -- promising to abstain from sex until marriage -- delayed having sex for longer but did not have correspondingly diminished STD infection rates. That's because most pledgers didn't actually keep their oaths all the way to marriage, and those breaking them were less likely to use condoms the first time they had sex. Moreover, the minority of pledgers who actually managed to abstain from vaginal sex until marriage were more likely to get it on in other ways -- such as trying out oral or anal sex -- in the meantime.

With more space, we could catalogue more distortions on 4parents.gov. But a more interesting question is: Where are they coming from? Part of the explanation may arise from the fact that in the site's creation, the government partnered with a nonprofit group called the National Physicians Center for Family Resources. This organization has previously teamed up with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists to oppose the so-called abortion pill RU-486, and has promoted the dubious notion, popular on the religious right, of a link between abortion and breast cancer.

It is a sad day, but we can no longer doubt that it has arrived. At least in the area of sexual health, Americans can no longer rely on their own government for balanced, objective information.


Chris Mooney is a Prospect senior correspondent whose TAP Online column appears each week.

Some schools' sex-ed classes stun parents, trip porn filters

Some schools' sex-ed classes stun parents, trip porn filters

By Peter Bronson
Daily Enquirer (MA) staff writer


This is one of those stories that makes me wonder: How can anyone so stupid be in charge of education?

The Montgomery County, Md., school board is getting scorched by parents and churches for plans to teach 10th-graders how to put condoms on cucumbers, and teach eighth-graders that experimenting with homosexuality is as normal as white socks in gym class.

"Sexual orientation being introduced to eighth-graders is totally inappropriate for such a young age and is only going to confuse kids, and it's contrary to what many parents want to teach their children," said a mother who resigned from the curriculum committee in protest. She told the Washington Times, "I don't understand why we have to teach kids how to put on a condom. If they can't figure out how to put on a condom, then they're too stupid to be having sex."

But still smart enough for the school board. The board president defended the plan: "It is important for children to have facts about the way life really is."

Ah, yes - real life

Someone should tell her how "life really is" for teens who get sexually transmitted diseases and have babies because they were brainwashed to believe condoms are "safe sex."

A national Zogby poll found 88 percent of parents oppose condom college in junior high (71 percent for high school). So why do school boards do it? My guess is contagious imbecility - which is another way of saying political correctness.

In Idaho, Florida, Michigan and California, they've had the same battles. Critics say sex-ed plans by the federal Sex Information and Education Council are inappropriate, gay-agenda indoctrination. Supporters call the parents and churches "bigots from the Christian right.''

We'd be having the same battle in Ohio, but similar lessons hatched by education officials were killed five years ago.

"I remember, it was so ironic. They called it Programs That Work," said Sen. Jim Jordan, who led the fight. "The Department of Education had not yet introduced it into the classrooms, but they had trained all these teachers, and some were coming to me saying, 'This is not good stuff.' I looked. They were right.''

Ohio just said no

Ohio's sex-ed lessons were funded by a $900,000 federal grant from the Clinton administration. They included explicit teaching on homosexual sex, and oral-sex instructions.

When protesters blocked it, the Ohio Department of Education threw a fit and tried to deny it. Then they made cosmetic changes, renamed it "abstinence'' and tried again. After packed, emotional hearings, lawmakers said "no way."

"They wanted the money so bad," Jordan said. "But we were one of two states that sent it back. We figured if you're spending it on something that stupid, we're not going to keep it.

"It's been five years, and they have not tried to bring this baloney back."

The rest of the nation is not so lucky. A Heritage Foundation report on lessons used in some schools begins: "Warning: This chapter contains sexually explicit, graphic material, as quoted from the material reviewed."

When an angry parent wrote to the Montgomery County school board to protest, his e-mail was rejected because words from the sex-ed lessons couldn't pass the schools' own porn filter.

No wonder a recent California study found that 20 percent of 14-year-olds have tried oral sex. In some schools, it's practically homework.

"You would think adults would be smarter than this," Jordan said.

You'd think.

Some schools' sex-ed classes stun parents, trip porn filters

Some schools' sex-ed classes stun parents, trip porn filters

By Peter Bronson
Daily Enquirer (MA) staff writer


This is one of those stories that makes me wonder: How can anyone so stupid be in charge of education?

The Montgomery County, Md., school board is getting scorched by parents and churches for plans to teach 10th-graders how to put condoms on cucumbers, and teach eighth-graders that experimenting with homosexuality is as normal as white socks in gym class.

"Sexual orientation being introduced to eighth-graders is totally inappropriate for such a young age and is only going to confuse kids, and it's contrary to what many parents want to teach their children," said a mother who resigned from the curriculum committee in protest. She told the Washington Times, "I don't understand why we have to teach kids how to put on a condom. If they can't figure out how to put on a condom, then they're too stupid to be having sex."

But still smart enough for the school board. The board president defended the plan: "It is important for children to have facts about the way life really is."

Ah, yes - real life

Someone should tell her how "life really is" for teens who get sexually transmitted diseases and have babies because they were brainwashed to believe condoms are "safe sex."

A national Zogby poll found 88 percent of parents oppose condom college in junior high (71 percent for high school). So why do school boards do it? My guess is contagious imbecility - which is another way of saying political correctness.

In Idaho, Florida, Michigan and California, they've had the same battles. Critics say sex-ed plans by the federal Sex Information and Education Council are inappropriate, gay-agenda indoctrination. Supporters call the parents and churches "bigots from the Christian right.''

We'd be having the same battle in Ohio, but similar lessons hatched by education officials were killed five years ago.

"I remember, it was so ironic. They called it Programs That Work," said Sen. Jim Jordan, who led the fight. "The Department of Education had not yet introduced it into the classrooms, but they had trained all these teachers, and some were coming to me saying, 'This is not good stuff.' I looked. They were right.''

Ohio just said no

Ohio's sex-ed lessons were funded by a $900,000 federal grant from the Clinton administration. They included explicit teaching on homosexual sex, and oral-sex instructions.

When protesters blocked it, the Ohio Department of Education threw a fit and tried to deny it. Then they made cosmetic changes, renamed it "abstinence'' and tried again. After packed, emotional hearings, lawmakers said "no way."

"They wanted the money so bad," Jordan said. "But we were one of two states that sent it back. We figured if you're spending it on something that stupid, we're not going to keep it.

"It's been five years, and they have not tried to bring this baloney back."

The rest of the nation is not so lucky. A Heritage Foundation report on lessons used in some schools begins: "Warning: This chapter contains sexually explicit, graphic material, as quoted from the material reviewed."

When an angry parent wrote to the Montgomery County school board to protest, his e-mail was rejected because words from the sex-ed lessons couldn't pass the schools' own porn filter.

No wonder a recent California study found that 20 percent of 14-year-olds have tried oral sex. In some schools, it's practically homework.

"You would think adults would be smarter than this," Jordan said.

You'd think.

Creative condoms becoming more popular despite high costs

Creative condoms becoming more popular despite high costs
by Erika Wurst published on Thursday, April 7, 2005 - Arizona State University Devil

ASU communication freshman Samantha Finkelstein says just as long as her partner is wearing a condom, she is happy. Justice studies senior Zack Taylor says if a condom vibrates, it might be worth $12.

Condoms. They're rarely used for pleasure.

Rather, they act as a means of protection from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

But one condom company wants to change the way some couples think of condoms -- as a hassle and pleasure barrier.

Ansell, based in Australia, is making novelty condoms to spice up sex lives while promoting safe sex. And it's working.

The company released a new condom in December, and even though they cost $12 a pop, the Vibe 4U has skyrocketed to become Australia's No.1-selling condom.

With a battery-operated silicone ring that fits over the condom, the Vibe 4U not only protects the user and his mate, but pulsates to stimulate both partners.

Vibe 4U isn't the only condom trying to win the hearts of couples. Other novelty condoms that are on the market include glow-in-the-dark, flavored, musical and ice condoms.

Musical condoms are fitted with mini electronic devices connected to censors that trigger music to become louder as the sex becomes more intense; various positions lend themselves to various tunes. Ice condoms contain a lubricant that will create a cool, icy feeling on contact.

The market is shifting and so is the way people are looking at condom use. SPM hits campus this week and asks students to tell their condom experiences and if they would spend $12 on a novelty condom.

Who: Communication freshman Samantha Finkelstein
Where: At a picnic table, scoping out boys.

SPM: In general, how important is it for you to use a condom when you're with a partner?

Finkelstein: Very important because I don't want to have babies right now.

SPM: Is it ever embarrassing for you to bring up condom use when getting intimate?

Finkelstein: It's not embarrassing at all. I'm not going to have sex with a guy if he's not willing to use a condom.

SPM: What about a long-term relationship?

Finkelstein: No, not always. But that's different.

SPM: Do you ever feel embarrassed when buying condoms?

Finkelstein: I have never bought condoms. I make the guy bring them. I get them for free sometimes, but I've never bought them. I would, though.

SPM: Do you have a favorite brand?

Finkelstein: My favorite would probably be "for her pleasure" condoms.

SPM: Have you or would you ever consider using flavored, glow-in-the-dark or other novelty condoms?

Finkelstein: I would like to try new things and experiment. Have I ever, though? It's very possible. I don't pay much attention. As long as it's on, I'm happy.

SPM: A company just came out with a No. 1-selling condom that has a retail value of $12. What could a condom do that would be worth $12?
Finkelstein: It must guarantee no STDs or babies if it costs that much money.

SPM: Say you are with a partner you feel comfortable having unprotected sex with, would you ever use a novelty condom anyway, just for the fun of it?

Finkelstein: Yeah, definitely if it spiced things up. If I was going to get a different experience or sensation out of it, I would try it, just for experimental purposes.

Who: Justice studies senior Zack TaylorWhere: Chomping on a sandwich outside of Einstein's Bagels.

SPM: Zack, how important is condom use when you're with a sexual partner?

Taylor: Very. It protects me against disease.

SPM: What about in a long-term relationship? Is it just as important?

Taylor: It depends, if you've known each other for a while, you can go get tested together.

SPM: Do you ever get embarrassed bringing up condom use with a new partner?

Taylor: No. It's something that if you're cool enough to be having sex, you should be cool enough to talk about that sort of thing.

SPM: What about buying condoms. Ever get embarrassed walking up to the counter?

Taylor: Guys are always embarrassed to buy that crap, but personally I wouldn't be embarrassed to buy them if I needed them.

SPM: Do you have a favorite brand?

Taylor: Trojan because they're well known. They have a bunch of commercials and stuff, so I'd chose that over some brand I didn't know.

SPM: If you did ever leave the trusty Trojans, would you consider using novelty condoms like flavored or glow-in-the-dark?

Taylor: Heck yeah, why not? Anything that would be fun for me and her. Any suggestions that she would have, I would be up for.

SPM: Now, the million dollar question: A company just came out with a No. 1-selling condom that has a retail value of $12. What could a condom do that would be worth $12?

Taylor: Twelve dollars? It probably vibrates or something, I don't know.

SPM: Wow, we're impressed. That's exactly what it does.

Taylor: I guess it's worth the $12 then. I suppose that gets pretty expensive after a while.

SPM: If you were in a long-term relationship with someone you felt comfortable having unprotected sex with, would you use a novelty condom anyway?

Taylor: I'd say no because it feels better without it. But I guess if she wants to try something like that, then yeah, if it added a little something extra. There are so many stinking types.

SPM: Critics argue that novelty condoms are encouraging sexual activity among young people. Do you agree or disagree with this argument?

Taylor: I disagree. It's better to use a condom than not, and if they are promoting sex, at least they're promoting it safely.

Reach the reporter at erika.wurst@asu.edu.

Activists say Pope's opposition to condoms hindered global AIDS fight

April 06, 2005 Assicated Press

Activists say Pope's opposition to condoms hindered global AIDS fight

The late pope John Paul II's opposition to condom use to prevent the spread of HIV, even in poor areas of the world hit hard by the disease, was a major obstacle in fighting the global epidemic, say some AIDS activists, Agence France-Presse reports. The pope first voiced his opposition to condom use in 1988, saying that "no personal or social circumstances could ever, can now, or will ever render such an act lawful in itself." Despite being seriously ill, on March 11 he reiterated his position, saying, "Fidelity within marriage and abstinence outside are the only sure ways to limit the further spread of AIDS."

Some AIDS activists say the pope's opposition to condom use helped fuel the spread of HIV in developing nations, particularly those with large Catholic populations in Africa and Latin America. "We understand the position of the church, but you have to face reality," Attaher Maiga, a member of Mali's National AIDS High Council, told Agence France-Presse. "There isn't an alternative. The use of condoms is one of the solutions to fight the spread of HIV." A spokesman for the Paris chapter of the activist group ACT UP told the news agency, "We mourn for the 8 million Catholics who have died of AIDS and worry for the more than 10 million Catholics who are infected." Members of the South African activist group Treatment Action Campaign say they hope the next pope will have a less conservative stance on condom use to prevent HIV transmissions, particularly in developing countries.

California court upholds domestic partner law

California court upholds domestic partner law
Law doesn't contradict gay marriage ban, court rules

Tuesday, April 5, 2005 Posted: 1:37 PM EDT (1737 GMT)


SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- A California law granting domestic partners nearly identical legal rights as married couples does not conflict with a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, a state appeals court ruled.

California's domestic partner law represents the nation's most sweeping recognition of domestic partner rights short of Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legalized, and Vermont, which recognizes civil unions for gay couples. It grants registered couples virtually every spousal right under state law except the ability to file joint income taxes.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal said Monday that the law did not undermine Proposition 22, the 2000 initiative that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. That measure was "intended only to limit the status of marriage to heterosexual couples and to prevent the recognition in California of homosexual marriages," the three-judge panel said.

The ruling upheld a trial judge's decision in favor of the domestic partner law, which was signed by former Gov. Gray Davis. There are now about 29,000 couples registered as domestic partners, according to the secretary of state's office.

The Campaign for California Families had challenged the domestic partner law. Randy Thomasson, executive of the Campaign for California Families, said the group would appeal and move for another ballot initiative that would end domestic partnerships.

"This ruling gives impetus to the push for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage from the clutches of judges and politicians," Thomasson said.

But Jenny Pizer, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a pro-gay rights group, said the ruling "confirms the common-sense understanding that people in California have that domestic partnership and marriage are different."

Last month, a San Francisco County Superior Court judge ruled that laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman were unconstitutional, as was Proposition 22.

The ruling was appealed and will likely go to the California Supreme Court. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he opposes gay marriage but would not try to amend the state constitution if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling.

Late Pope's Opposition to Condom Use Obstacle in Fight Against Disease, Say AIDS Advocates

Late Pope's Opposition to Condom Use Obstacle in Fight Against Disease, Say AIDS Advocates

Some AIDS advocates in Africa have said that the late Pope John Paul II's opposition to condom use was a "major obstacle" in the fight against the disease,... AFP/Khaleej Times reports (AFP/Khaleej Times, 4/5).

The pope -- whose tenure lasted from 1978 until his death on Saturday -- in 1988 said that the use of contraceptives was "intrinsically illicit," adding, "No personal or social circumstances could ever, can now or will ever render such an act lawful in itself," according to AFP/Yahoo! News (AFP/Yahoo! News, 4/4). The pope in January reiterated the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to the use of condoms, saying that "respect of the sacred value of life and formation about the correct practice of sexuality" is the church's position on the issue (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 1/24).

On March 11, the pope said, "Fidelity within marriage and abstinence outside are the only sure ways to limit the further spread of AIDS." Some AIDS advocates said the pope's view of homosexuality as "immoral" and his "conservatism" on women's rights, as well as his opposition to condoms, were "bleak failures" in the fight against HIV/AIDS, according to AFP/Yahoo! News.

Although the pope called for support for people who are ill with AIDS-related diseases and "pleaded" for help for AIDS orphans, some AIDS advocates on Monday said that his opposition to condoms and women's empowerment might "even have helped propagate HIV," according to AFP/Yahoo! News (AFP/Yahoo! News, 4/4).

Late Pope's Opposition to Condom Use Obstacle in Fight Against Disease, Say AIDS Advocates

Late Pope's Opposition to Condom Use Obstacle in Fight Against Disease, Say AIDS Advocates

Some AIDS advocates in Africa have said that the late Pope John Paul II's opposition to condom use was a "major obstacle" in the fight against the disease,... AFP/Khaleej Times reports (AFP/Khaleej Times, 4/5).

The pope -- whose tenure lasted from 1978 until his death on Saturday -- in 1988 said that the use of contraceptives was "intrinsically illicit," adding, "No personal or social circumstances could ever, can now or will ever render such an act lawful in itself," according to AFP/Yahoo! News (AFP/Yahoo! News, 4/4). The pope in January reiterated the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to the use of condoms, saying that "respect of the sacred value of life and formation about the correct practice of sexuality" is the church's position on the issue (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 1/24).

On March 11, the pope said, "Fidelity within marriage and abstinence outside are the only sure ways to limit the further spread of AIDS." Some AIDS advocates said the pope's view of homosexuality as "immoral" and his "conservatism" on women's rights, as well as his opposition to condoms, were "bleak failures" in the fight against HIV/AIDS, according to AFP/Yahoo! News.

Although the pope called for support for people who are ill with AIDS-related diseases and "pleaded" for help for AIDS orphans, some AIDS advocates on Monday said that his opposition to condoms and women's empowerment might "even have helped propagate HIV," according to AFP/Yahoo! News (AFP/Yahoo! News, 4/4).

AIDS activists say condom distribution in gay venues has nearly disappeared

Source: April 05, 2005 Advocate

Most gay bars in New York City have stopped stocking free condoms, a dramatic turnaround from the earliest days of the AIDS epidemic when condoms were plentiful at most gay venues, The New York Times reports. HIV prevention literature, which also was at one time available at nearly every gay bar and club in the city, is now also increasingly difficult to find.

Some AIDS activists say the disappearance of condoms from gay bars is an alarming indicator of the gay community's dwindling commitment to fighting the spread of HIV. They say that a growing sense that antiretroviral drugs have reduced the threat of HIV disease coupled with safer-sex burnout is fueling a rise in unprotected sex among gay men and a growing disinterest among gay community groups and businesses in staying active in HIV prevention efforts.

But many AIDS experts say the challenge to keep gay men practicing safer sex extends well beyond street-level outreach in bars and clubs where condoms and informational brochures are handed out. "Just because folks are well-informed doesn't mean they'll necessarily make the wisest choices in terms of their health," Ronald O. Valdiserri, who oversees HIV prevention programs at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told the Times. "This is true of all humanity, not just gay men."

Instead, many AIDS advocates are calling for more comprehensive HIV prevention efforts that attempt to get at the roots of why gay men engage in risky sex, including looking at psychological issues associated with homosexuality. They say that the real driving forces behind risky sex are loneliness, self-hatred, and alienation.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are AIDS advocates who say the key to boosting safer sex among gay men is to stress personal responsibility, remind people that living with HIV is difficult and potentially even life-threatening, and stigmatize unprotected sex. They also say drug companies should stop running advertisements for anti-HIV drugs that suggest that all HIV-positive people lead carefree and perfectly healthy lives.

Study: Abstinence projects will "reverse" HIV success

Study: Abstinence projects will "reverse" HIV successPatrick Letellier, Gay.com/PlanetOut.com Network
Monday 4 April, 2005 11:52

A shift toward US-funded "abstinence only" programmes threatens to reverse significant progress made in Uganda to curb the spread of HIV and AIDS, according to a report released Wednesday by the Human Rights Watch.

Crucial information about HIV transmission, safe sex and condom use has been removed from school curricula in Uganda and replaced by information emphasising abstinence, the report says.

Abstinence-only campaigns teach that abstaining from sex until marriage is the only sure way to prevent HIV, and that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only acceptable arena for sexual activity.

Abstinence programs are widely touted by religious conservative in the United States, though research has shown such programs to be ineffective and even harmful, undermining the use of condoms and other forms of contraception and reducing medical treatment.

Uganda's new educational material about HIV, promoted to children in both primary and secondary school, says that premarital sex is a form of "deviance" and falsely claims that condoms have tiny pores through which HIV can pass.

These programs "dictate morals and ethics, but censor other important life-saving information," said Tony Tate, co-author of the report. "Although proven again and again to be ineffective, they continue to be funded by the Bush administration," Tate told the Gay.com/PlanetOut Network.

Uganda is often cited as a model country for the success of its HIV prevention strategy.

Its prevention policy, popularly known as the "ABC" strategy -- an acronym for "Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms" -- is credited for helping reduce the prevalence of HIV in the country from roughly 15 percent of the population in the early 1990s to about 6 percent today.

But that strategy is being replaced by the new "Abstinence and Being faithful," or "AB", strategy, with condom use and availability noticeably absent. Removing condom use from Uganda's HIV prevention strategy could prove fatal, Tate said.

"Abstinence-only programs are a triumph of ideology over public health," said Human Rights Watch researcher Jonathan Cohen, another author of the report, citing the role of American fundamentalist Christians in promoting these policies in the United States and abroad.

A growing fundamentalist Christian movement in Uganda is working closely with Christian, faith-based organisations in the United States to embrace and promote abstinence messages.

"Americans should demand that HIV-prevention programs worldwide stick to science," Cohen said

Condoms protect more than ignorance

By The Daily Editorial Board (University of Washington)
April 04, 2005

Perhaps the Bush administration has forgotten what it's like to be a teenager.

The administration's idea of a good parental-child sex chat is outlined on government Web site 4parents.gov.

This site advises parents to emphasize abstinence as the only way for students to completely protect themselves, and also features a questionable chart listing common STDs and the effectiveness of condoms.

The findings are based on unpublished data presented at the 2002 National STD conference -- hardly enough to back a government site.

This site, combined with the fact that Washington schools are not required to teach medically accurate information, illuminates the government's intentional sloppiness designed to promote conservative ideology without regards to reality.

Abstinence is a respectable position, but not every young adult is going to live by such rules, and especially not in college, when the possibility of being caught by mom and dad is eliminated. Despite the government's best efforts at teaching abstinence, more than a million young women under age 20 become pregnant each year.

Here in Washington, House Bill 1282 is a step in the right direction. The bill requires schools to teach abstinence along with other preventative methods to "ensure that young people have as much accurate, objective information about sexual health as possible."

Young people deserve to know all the options available to them. The Bush-approved Web site attacks condom use as ineffective, but the protection condoms offer is far better than ignorance.

Oral Sex Safe and Not Really Sex, Say U.S. Teens

Oral Sex Safe and Not Really Sex, Say U.S. Teens
CHICAGO - One in five U.S. teenagers say they have engaged in oral sex, an activity that some adolescents view as not sex at all and certainly less risky than intercourse, according to a report obtained by Reuters.

The survey of 580 children with a mean age of 14-1/2 found 20 percent said they had engaged in oral sex, compared to 14 percent who said they had engaged in sexual intercourse, Reuters reported.

In addition, one-third of the multi-ethnic 9th graders surveyed said they intended to have oral sex within the next six months and nearly one-fourth planned to have intercourse during the period, according to the report. It was more common for boys to have performed oral sex on girls than vice versa, the report said.

Previous studies and numerous campaigns aimed at deterring teenaged sex have focused on intercourse, but as many as half of adolescents experience oral sex first, the report said.

The risk of transmitting infections, including HIV, is significantly less with oral sex than with intercourse but is likely underestimated by teenagers, said the report in the journal Pediatrics.

Youngsters who engage in oral sex rarely used condoms or dental dams, even though herpes, hepatitis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis as well as the virus that causes AIDS can all be transmitted orally, it added.

"Given the suggestion that adolescents do not view oral sex as sex and see oral sex as a way of preserving their virginity while still gaining intimacy and sexual pleasure, they are likely to interpret sexual health messages as referring to vaginal sex," wrote lead author Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, a pediatrician at the University of California, San Francisco.

"Adolescents also believed that oral sex is more acceptable than vaginal sex for adolescents their own age in both dating and non-dating situations, oral sex is less of a threat to their values and beliefs, and more of their peers will have oral sex than vaginal sex in the near future," she wrote.