Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Column Archive |  On Twitter: J Huget and MisFits  |  Fitness & Nutrition News  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed
Posted at 8:15 AM ET, 01/ 3/2011

Some young adults with STDs say they've never had sex

By Jennifer LaRue Huget

The first question you'd likely ask a young adult if you were screening him or her for sexually transmitted disease (STD) would be whether he or she had been sexually active.

But new research suggests that his or her answer might not always comport with lab results.

Of 14,000 people (whose mean age was about 22 years) included in a study published this morning in the journal Pediatrics, fully 10 percent of those who tested positive for one of three common STDs (chlamydia, gonorrhea trichomoniasis) reported they hadn't had sex during the previous 12 months.

And 60 percent of that 10 percent said they'd never had sex at all.

The numbers held even after researchers controlled for such variables as gender, race, age and education. The authors acknowledge some room for error: for instance, study participants were only asked about penile/vaginal penetration, not about oral or anal sex. The timing was such that a person could have had sex during the study period but not within the 12 months before the question was asked. And there's some small possibility of false positive readings on the urine tests used to detect STDs.

Still, the authors say, the findings suggest that physicians treating teens and young adults should perhaps use lab tests to screen all those patients for STDs, as screening only those who report they've been sexually active may lead to many cases going undiagnosed and untreated -- and ready to spread to others.

Such routine screening could of course prove controversial in some circles.

Would you want your teenage or young-adult offspring screened for STDs as a matter of course? Or do you think such screening should be reserved for young people who report they've been sexually active?

By Jennifer LaRue Huget  | January 3, 2011; 8:15 AM ET
Categories:  Reproductive Health, STDs, Sex, Teens  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Is that right? Dannon yogurts fight flu, cold and irregularity?
Next: Consumer Reports offers snapshot of American eating habits

Comments

Unless the youngster can recite the Apostle's Creed and show authorities his or her baptism or confirmation card and certificate of completion of an government funded abstinence course, all should be obligatorily tested. We can't have these filthy non-believers running around loose in the world spreading their sinful diseases to others.

Posted by: areyousaying | January 3, 2011 8:52 AM | Report abuse

So this study used the Bill Clinton definition of sex, which allowed the kids to claim that they "did not have sex with that woman/man"?

Posted by: WashingtonDame | January 3, 2011 9:34 AM | Report abuse

The STD rates of counties with large university campuses has risen by incredible increments in recent years. Overall the national young adult STD rates have also climbed.

In other studies teens, even those that took comprehensive sex education (and in one study they performed even worse), have shown great ignorance of the protections that various 'safe sex' practices actually provide.

What are we doing to this generation? What path have we led them down?

Posted by: cprferry | January 3, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

WashingtonPost,

Your title for this article is misleading: "Questioning TEENS about STDs".

This article is not about teens, it's about a group whose *average age* is 22. That means it's mostly about people in their 20s.

Posted by: eugene8 | January 3, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

What possible business is it for the government not to accept the word of teenagers who say they are abstinant? One-size-fits-all bureaucrats aside, this is a matter the government needs to leave to a teenager and his or her physician. It is none of the government's damn business.

Posted by: edwardallen54 | January 3, 2011 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Holy Mother of Bristol! Are they saying that just mouthing the pretty words of abstinence is insufficient to keep youngsters out of trouble? I thought Denial was all we needed. Hmm. Maybe honest discussion and more frank openness about sexuality has its place. Ya think??

Posted by: B2O2 | January 3, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse

from my college days the Bill Clinton defintion of sex was quite rampant and many felt true to their ultimate husbands.

Posted by: simplewords999 | January 3, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who has gone through airport security in the U.S. has essentially had sex.

Test them all.

Posted by: MDLaxer | January 3, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

This isn't about "bureaucrats", it's about doctors treating their patients on the basis of reality and not religious delusion. It's the kids who pray the loudest who get pregnant. Is a doctor really doing a service to them if he fails to diagnose their STD's?

Posted by: DaveHarris | January 3, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

This isn't about "bureaucrats", it's about doctors treating their patients on the basis of reality and not religious delusion. It's the kids who pray the loudest who get pregnant. Is a doctor really doing a service to them if he fails to diagnose their STD's?

Posted by: DaveHarris | January 3, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Gee, what with Ms. Obama telling us we can't leave feeding of children to the parents, and now this shocking outcome --- that some young 'uns might shade the truth a bit in matters dealing with sexuality --- what's a poor schmuck to do?

I'd agree to having all teens screened for STD's through some government fiat when you tell me that all PERSONS should be mandatorily screened for HIV/AIDS. How's that for a "compromise?"

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | January 3, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

If all young people were routinely screened then how they interpret the definition of sex would be moot.

Re: Edwardallen54 -- it is a public health issue and therefore of interest to the government.

Posted by: MAS-NYC | January 3, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Unless the youngster can recite the Apostle's Creed and show authorities his or her baptism or confirmation card and certificate of completion of an government funded abstinence course, all should be obligatorily tested. We can't have these filthy non-believers running around loose in the world spreading their sinful diseases to others.

Posted by: areyousaying | January 3, 2011 8:52 AM

~~~~

LOL!

Posted by: lcarter0311 | January 3, 2011 3:24 PM | Report abuse

If teenagers were routinely tested, rather than relying on self disclosure, it would obviously help prevent the spread of disease and protect the health of the young person, who may be reluctant to report sexual activity of any kind, including sexual abuse. This particular study sounds a bit flawed, but even if somewhat flawed it raises an important issue about relying on self disclosure as a means to pursue good health. It should, however, be redone, lest it becomes exhibit A for the defense in sexual abuse cases.

Posted by: rryder1 | January 3, 2011 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Stupid kids! This what happens in a world of moral relativism. If you're going down on a woman, or giving a BJ, you're having sex!

Posted by: liberalsareblind | January 3, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

So phantom sexual encounters is giving people STD's? Of course these people had sex.

Posted by: Jsuf | January 3, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

i think it should be done as a matter of course because its apparent that someone is lying and dont want their parents to know they had sex

Posted by: JeroRobson1 | January 3, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Thats just a cruel double whammy! Virgin with chlamydia...

Posted by: ozpunk | January 3, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Crikey, people, read the article first before you go on anti-government rants. There is absolutely nothing in anything Ms. Huget wrote that suggests, implies ,or calls for a government role in this. In fact, it SPECIFICALLY says "physicians treating teens and young adults should perhaps. . . ."

Sheesh.

Posted by: AnnieDC | January 3, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Let's see - New Flash - you can contract certain STDs without having sex. They're bacterial infections after all. Genital contact with toilets is one common risk area. Besides, with teens especially, you have to be careful as to what they mean by 'haven't had sex'.

Maybe the 10% is new information, but the article's main premise is hardly news. Amazing.

Posted by: JHG_sec405 | January 3, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure why I wouldn't want them screened. It doesn't do any harm, right?
I think the stats are completely unreliable though. How else do you get STDs other than through sexual contact?

Posted by: hebe1 | January 3, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

We know that AIDS can be transmitted by blood transfusions and that chlamydia can be transmitted by a damp locker room bench. I think that the results of this study should strongly encourage medical researchers to further investigate the risks of alternative methods of STD transmission.

Posted by: Anonymous123451 | January 3, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

And lying by the teens was not a possible source of error either?

Posted by: blasmaic | January 3, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

The key to this issue is that some people don't classify "sex" as anything but penetration-- so many religious teens, for instance, "save themselves" for their wedding day, but have no problem with oral, anal, or other. Sex is sex, and the sooner everyone understands that, the better. I'm not about to argue for destigmatizing sex, or for telling the religious wackjobs that they're harming their kids more than helping them with enforced virginity, but as a matter of public health, this stuff should be rote.

Posted by: Elnok | January 3, 2011 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Bill Clinton. Thank you Democrats. Thank you main stream media. It really depends on what "is" is.

Posted by: maxtel1910 | January 3, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

This is why everyone needs health care, if not health insurance. When fighting an infectious agent the last thing we need is a reservoir of untreated people with no access to health care running around.

Maybe when the Germans started national health care about 1850 they realized the plague was going to be everyone's problem in short order. It did kill a third of Europe quite easily, although it was a much filthier time compared to ours. The best they could do, the best we can do, is to have enough doctors and medicines for everyone, along with public works and sanitation, improved nutrition, cheap clothing that can be changed and washed, etc.

To think that somebody wants a vote to repeal health care Jan. 12. They might as well repeal retirement income or make it so small it is meaningless. It is no secret they'd like to wind the clock back before Roe v. Wade, too, though I am more concerned about winding the clock back to Charles Dickens and Oliver Twist.

Of course the people they care about don't need a hand out. They can afford their own fantastic health care and retirement. And go scratch to everyone else's because it
raises their taxes. Oh the poor selfish rich people.

Oh where did "of the people, by the people, FOR the people" go?

Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom | January 3, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Bristol Palin was clearly a virgin who gave birth to a miracle (twice...since we know Trig isn't Sarah's baby). Bristol probably told her mother she was virgin until the day her babies popped out.
.
Now Bristol is out promoting the idea of abstinence, while, no doubt, still having sex (and if you believe she isn't I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you).

Posted by: B-rod | January 3, 2011 6:32 PM | Report abuse

For example, look out what is happening in the former Soviet Union. Things like tuberculosis are reaching epidemic proportions. The danger is inconsistent use of medicine could create a superbug resistant to antibiotics that will run rampant worldwide.

Or global warming bringing malaria or dengue fever closer to the United States.

If ever something required "of [all] the people, by [all] the people, for [all] the people", it is modern medical care for infectious disease. If we have 10 to 15% without health care, it could come back to bite us.

If you're going to demand my credentials, no, I never went to medical school. Only that I follow up on national and world affairs like any educated citizen.

And selfish me-first politics is going to get us into trouble. When was the last time the Republicans cared for everyone? Reagan? I forgot.

Posted by: cmarshdtihqcom | January 3, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

All teens should be tested for STDs, especially if they can recite the Apostle's Creed and show authorities his or her baptism or confirmation card and certificate of completion of an government funded abstinence course. Its the medical profession's role to heal, not to judge. When the stakes are this high, why should we rely on the patient's word? Take moral judgment out; if testing were a matter of course, cases of transmission would drop and lead to an overall decrease in health care costs.

Posted by: RealisticMom | January 3, 2011 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"And 60 percent of that 10 percent said they'd never had sex at all."


They lied. Duh.........

Posted by: momof20yo | January 3, 2011 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Which is worse here, teens with STD's who say they haven't had sex, or the medical professions who are believing the teens lies?

Posted by: momof20yo | January 3, 2011 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Okay, here's the counter-argument. My 18-y-o son would be deeply offended and scandalized by STD testing.

But he is a special case. He's autistic. He's never even kissed a girl. His first "date" was about a month ago - with a sweet young lady who's also on the autism spectrum (Aspergers Syndrome), who doesn't like him *that* way, anyway.

Kids like my son, and his friend, should have the option to refuse unnecessary testing.

Now his 13-y-o brother... different story. He got his first kiss when he was 6-y-o, and she was an "older woman" - 8! He'll talk about anything at all with his dad (thank goodness!), but he sure gets embarrassed when I use the word condom. I hope the doc tests him for everything at every opportunity, because he's at risk!

Posted by: SueMc | January 3, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

This is idiotic. According to the study, 6% of teens and 20's with an STD said they had never had intercourse....but the clowns doing the questionnaire did NOT ask about oral or anal sex.

So now liberals want to test ALL TEENS for STDs because a flawed study found that between ZERO and SIX percent of people with STDs may lie.

Junk science. Cut their budget.

Posted by: johnhopkinson2004 | January 3, 2011 7:36 PM | Report abuse

In the Clinton days we learned the standard, "eatin' ain't cheatin'" This is a rule physicians may want to test.

Posted by: masonjahr | January 3, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

all of these are true and funny to read... if there was a like button on each one... most all of them would get a thousand hits or more...

Posted by: FranknErnest | January 3, 2011 8:39 PM | Report abuse

The STD rates of counties with large university campuses has risen by incredible increments in recent years. Overall the national young adult STD rates have also climbed.


Good example is the number on a largest STD online dating site stdpal.com has increased about 2/3 in 2008 to 2010. Even some celebrity are on this site!! OMG! Why so many hot guys&girls are living with H in the world?

Posted by: calamary30 | January 3, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse

Thirty years ago I discovered through a medical research project that trichomonas can be transmitted through the shared use of damp bath towels and washcloths. Many a young girl has been badgered by physicians, accusing them of lying about not having has sexual contact, when, in actuality, they got it from their mothers. Even the CDC omits this vector from their description of how trich is transmitted.

Posted by: jblatt | January 3, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

If anyone doubts the intellectual decline of America, simply reading these comments, in one of this country's preeminent political publications, should be all the evidence required.

Posted by: Dawny_Chambers | January 4, 2011 7:25 AM | Report abuse

Unless the youngster can recite the Apostle's Creed and show authorities his or her baptism or confirmation card and certificate of completion of an government funded abstinence course, all should be obligatorily tested. We can't have these filthy non-believers running around loose in the world spreading their sinful diseases to others.
___________________________________________

NUT!

Let try something called MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
The Gov. needs to stay out of these matters it only runs up the deficit.

Posted by: shamken | January 4, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

If anyone doubts the intellectual decline of America, simply reading these comments, in one of this country's preeminent political publications, should be all the evidence required.

Posted by: Dawny_Chambers
--------------------------
Yes, the critical reading and comprehension skills shown by many of these comments are horrible. Nowhere in this article did it accuse any of the participants (or youngsters in general) of lying. Nor did it talk about the government mandating the screening for ever youth every time they make an appointment.

The whole concept here is that since it is a bacterial infection, this study shows that it can be contracted by other means and that perhaps not automatically tossing out the possibility of one of these infections (when kids come in with a specific complaint where an STD could be the cause) if the kid says they haven't had sex. Nothing more. Please get off you horses and soap boxes.

Posted by: schnauzer21 | January 4, 2011 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Schnauzer: you started off strong but #FAILed on "this study shows that it can be contracted by other means," proving the point about poor reading comprehension. If you go to the Pediatrics site and read the study abstract, you find references to self-reporting of behaviors and modern methods of STI screening--zilch, zippo, nada about non-sexual methods of transmission.

The concept is that self-reporting should not be relied upon, given the varying interpretations of "sex" and the human propensity to fib.

Posted by: bigolpoofter | January 4, 2011 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Why are y'all talking about the government? No one is suggesting mandatory screening. The journal study only encourages doctors to screen people for STDs whether or not they've had sex. Doctors only recommend, patients still have the final say.

Sounds to me like a big straw man argument is cooking in the comments section, as usual.

Posted by: jamesdg | January 4, 2011 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Do high school health classes teach kids about STDS--symptoms, how they are contracted, spread, the long term health effects, etc? If not, then maybe they should because it doesn't sound like parents are teaching their kids these things. I wonder how many women in their thirties can't conceive babies because of untreated chlamydia that they contracted while in their teens. People really need to tell kids the real risks involved with sexual behavior, because they don't seem to be getting the message.

Posted by: CAmira5 | January 4, 2011 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Rather than splitting hairs over the definition of sex and judging young adults for their actions, it would be more productive to educate them on safe sexual practices such as condom use and STD testing. It's unfortunate that there is so much stigma surrounding these issues. Fortunately there are confidential and affordable testing options such as GetSTDTested,com. It's so important to know you status and be educated on sexual health!

Posted by: jennyfromtheblock7 | January 4, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The blog posting is a good example of who inept journos are at reporting/understanding even simple research. The study collected urines for screening purposes, which was separate from the survey. This wasn't like a screening done in a clinic. the survey is part of a long-term follow-up in a study that began when people were adolescents, so the people reporting this were not teens at the time of the survey. It's not unusual for people to under-report sex and the 10% of those who were STI positive is actually not bad, as surveys go. Face-face interviews tend to get much more under-reporting (2-3x as much in the comparative studies that I know). Among women, many STIs are asymptomatic, so they may have had sex quite a while ago.

Posted by: thebuckguy | January 4, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

We know that AIDS can be transmitted by blood transfusions and that chlamydia can be transmitted by a damp locker room bench. I think that the results of this study should strongly encourage medical researchers to further investigate the risks of alternative methods of STD transmission.

Posted by: Anonymous123451

----------------

Um, no. Blood for transfusions is tested for HIV. And you can't get chlamydia from a locker room bench.

Posted by: jake14 | January 4, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Doctors should always offer STD testing for non-adult patients. And parents have a right and a responsibility to know if their child contracted an STD.

1. If you don't know, you can't cure the disease in the first place.

2. If you don't know, you can't stop the spread of the disease. That's the mistake the U.S. made letting the Gay and Lesbian community dictate HIV testing secrecy.

3. Could be child sexual abuse.

4. The STD could have been congenitally contracted. Who knows, maybe 3rd stage syphilis is in your immediate future if you don't have your kid checked.

Posted by: mhoust | January 4, 2011 1:40 PM | Report abuse


At age six, after borrowing someone's
harmonica...

I started getting cold sores, periodically Herpes whatever. Stayed in my body througout adulthood, appearing as a grid on hips around bad menstrual periods, perhaps low immune system.

STDs undoubtedly travel on mucus and bodily fluids of all kinds.

Posted by: whistling | January 4, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Unless the youngster can recite the Apostle's Creed and show authorities his or her baptism or confirmation card and certificate of completion of an government funded abstinence course, all should be obligatorily tested. We can't have these filthy non-believers running around loose in the world spreading their sinful diseases to others.
___________________________________________

NUT!

Let try something called MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
The Gov. needs to stay out of these matters it only runs up the deficit.

--------------------------------

All teens should be tested for STDs, especially if they can recite the Apostle's Creed and show authorities his or her baptism or confirmation card and certificate of completion of an government funded abstinence course. Its the medical profession's role to heal, not to judge. When the stakes are this high, why should we rely on the patient's word? Take moral judgment out; if testing were a matter of course, cases of transmission would drop and lead to an overall decrease in health care costs.

Posted by: RealisticMom |

-----------------------------------

Can you'al spell satire? I bet you can.

What is really scary is that you easily accepted there would be a Glenn Beck theocon out there who would really believe and write this. America is going straight to hell with the cross of Jesus going on before.

Posted by: areyousaying | January 4, 2011 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Automatic screening of all young adults seeking health services could have the unwanted effect of causing more young people to avoid medical attention, period, just as it did when word got out that hospitals were automatically screening for drugs of abuse. The rights and freedoms of young adults exist in a precarious tension between their biological, legal, and economic status -- they have the desires and needs of adults, but are often constrained by dependence on or outright coercion from adults who may have little regard for their freedom of choice. Under these circumstances, often their only recourse lies in deception, and as a consequence they will protect the privacy which ennables their secret lives fiercely. Further erosion of whatever fragile trust they retain for authority figures can have serious psychosocial consequences, encouraging more generalized distrust and cynicism, even leading to avoidable criminal acts. For this reason, it would be far better to OFFER, not to mandate, any kind of screening. Kids are already dealing with enough intrusive, and often abusive, authority. They don't need more of it in their lives.

Posted by: pythia53 | January 4, 2011 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Medical school exam question
Q: Can you get an STD on a toilet seat?
A: Yes, but there are more comfortable places to get one.
STD & never had sex? I hope MDs are not so gullible.

Posted by: arzt | January 4, 2011 7:32 PM | Report abuse

What happens in Vegas DOESN'T always stay in Vegas.

If drug companies get things like this into the official think, then come govt. Insurance day they can count on tons of money coming their way.

Count on a LOT of "screening every one" for many things to come. Everyone is going to want on that gravy train.

Posted by: tweetThis | January 4, 2011 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Everyone should be tested; everyone should be treated the same way. People will lie espessly when ask embarrassing questions. Rember Bill Clinton's answers to questions in the investigation of immoral conduct with Lewinski. All these kids will be tested for STD if they join the armed services. It is no bigger deal than being tested for drugs in a good many jobs that people work at that requires random drug testing. I think people shouldn't mind protecting othe people.

Posted by: OldCoot1 | January 4, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

There was at most one virgin birth. So, if a STD is found, intimacy of some type almost certainly occurred.

One thing not mentioned: What percent of those who had a STD but said that they had not had intercourse had an in tact hymen? (Note: Hymens can break for reasons other than a sexual penetration, so a broken hymen is not definitive "proof" that penetration has occurred.)

Posted by: jimb | January 4, 2011 8:50 PM | Report abuse

The STD conselor on an STD dating site: pozmingle,com said "The risk of contracting std hasn’t stopped them from having sex yet. Seems like people will continue to have sex regardless of any STD they may contract. Condoms at least cut that risk down. "

Posted by: juliarix | January 4, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse


------- -------- http://www.1shopping.us/ -----------

------- -------- http://www.1shopping.us/ -----------

Best regards for you all,

Looking forward to your visiting.

------- -------- http://www.1shopping.us/ -----------

Posted by: strade65 | January 4, 2011 9:35 PM | Report abuse

If the teabaggers had their way, any person here illegally would be denied basic healthcare.

Posted by: getjiggly2 | January 5, 2011 5:36 AM | Report abuse

Fact is, disease-causing (i.e. pathogenic) organisms can travel without actual penetration having taken place. And I don't mean public toilet seats. For those of you so disposed, a deeply held and officially certified religious belief system is *GUARANTEED* by God to keep you safe from STDs.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | January 5, 2011 7:00 AM | Report abuse

"This isn't about "bureaucrats", it's about doctors treating their patients on the basis of reality and not religious delusion. It's the kids who pray the loudest who get pregnant. Is a doctor really doing a service to them if he fails to diagnose their STD's?"

So true!

Posted by: therev1 | January 5, 2011 8:34 AM | Report abuse


While I would not mind my kids getting tested for STDs as a routine, it would be a waste of money. Perhaps the routine STD screening that was a part of the marriage license process, sacrificed on the altar of HIV "privacy", should be reinstated as a first step.

Posted by: edbyronadams | January 5, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

Its the failure of the schools to teach sex education that is a major part of the problem. Kids think they are abstinate just because they have not had intercourse. Well, surprise, there are lots of other ways to catch STDs. We need to do away with teh Bush mandate to teach abstinance (which never works) to teaching about sex.

Posted by: mdembski1 | January 5, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

areyousaying says.."Unless the youngster can recite the Apostle's Creed and show authorities his or her baptism or confirmation card and certificate of completion of an government funded abstinence course, all should be obligatorily tested. We can't have these filthy non-believers running around loose in the world spreading their sinful diseases to others."

And this is the problem, believing some religious belief stands an individual apart from others. STD's affect christian and non-Christian alike.

The real issue here is young people failing to be honest with themselves and others. Where did children learn to lie? From their Parents. Children learn everything at home, as home reinforces everything children learn through acceptance of their children's behavior at home.

Parents lie to their children and their children lie to themselves in response, and parents accept the lie as a truth from the child reinforcing the lie. And one lie perpetuates another lie, first simple and then complex lies, until it becomes impossible to discern truth from lie, and at that point children catch STD's without having sex, when in fact i the broader definition of sex, sex was had by both parties involved.

Not much different than the lie of I smoked but I did not inhale, from more than One siting President.

We, collectively, have allowed the truth to be redefined as something less, much less.

Posted by: patmatthews | January 5, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

If they have taken an abstinence pledge, or are Republicans, the test results MUST be wrong.

Posted by: 20yrskinfan | January 5, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

What about the mighty and powerful PURITY RING? Doesn't that prevent STD's?

Posted by: keithwright1 | January 6, 2011 11:59 PM | Report abuse

"Absitnance Only" sex education is 100% effective in STD's. It is 100$ effective because 100% of students that contracted STD's on Abstinance Only sex education, got them after taking the course.

Posted by: keithwright1 | January 7, 2011 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company