Study: 26% of teenage U.S. girls have STD

PJ_Saluki

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-teen-stds,0,7816348.story

Twenty-six percent of 836 of American girls age 14-19 tested by the CDC came up positive for STDs such as HPV, herpes, chlamydia and something else I can't remember. Extrapolate that percentage out to the population of teenage girls in the U.S. and it comes out to about three million . Sexually active girls tested positive at a 40-percent clip.

OK, that's disturbing but it left me scratching my head. What about the teenage boys who are sleeping with them? Unless this is something akin to the "Tractor" episode of Seinfeld, there are some dirty-dick little teenage horndogs running around out there fucking teenage girls or there are plenty of farm girls in bikinis taking the old John Deere for a spin.

And no, "taking the old John Deere for a spin" isn't a double entendre for sexing it up, though it does work as one.

So why the focus on girls? Is it because it's shocking to think of little Cheyenne or Dakota or Madison or, god forbid, Susie taking a cock? Are vaginas more important than penises? Well, that might not have been the best way to put that but do you get my point?

I know there are reproductive concerns. And boy, if there's one thing this world need, it's more people, but it just struck me as odd that the CDC threw only girls out there.

DriftingByTheStorm

i guess yay for me, i'm in to older chicks.

Smellyman2

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

i guess yay for me, i'm in to older chicks.

I am an equal oppurtunist, but that age range is too young for me.

I'm an old man now

Nevermind

Dont eat the fish.

GreenTeaDisease

PJ_Saluki wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-teen-stds,0,7816348.story


So why the focus on girls?

well, I would guess that 1) studies like these have to have as specific a question as possible. perhaps they will do a similar one on boys later and 2) the purpose of the study may have been to provide evidence to support vaccinating girls for hpv.

know1

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

2) the purpose of the study may have been to provide evidence to support vaccinating girls for hpv.

Studies that have a prior agenda should always be scrutinized carefully, IMO.

josevolution

teens are dirty ...:D

GreenTeaDisease

know1 wrote:

Studies that have a prior agenda should always be scrutinized carefully, IMO.

all should! (they all have a prior agenda on some level)

boxwine_in_hell

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

i guess yay for me, i'm in to older chicks.

Dude, go pick up a copy of Lolita.

harrymanback

skanks

SPEEDY MCCREADY

i just read an article where they tested 2,000 females under the age of 25 in Ireland......


33% of them had a STD..........

not surprising....

my2hands

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

i just read an article where they tested 2,000 females under the age of 25 in Ireland......


33% of them had a STD..........

not surprising....

dayum... irish girls are really cute too, what a shame

Sludge Factory

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

i guess yay for me, i'm in to older chicks.

I think the prevalence of HPV is pretty high in older women, too. So, either way, we're screwed.

GreenTeaDisease

Sludge Factory wrote:

I think the prevalence of HPV is pretty high in older women, too. So, either way, we're screwed.

hpv has no effect on men so don't worry. they just spread it around.

gimmesometruth27

i am glad to see that the abstinance only teaching here in the US has worked out so well....money well spent...

_

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

hpv has no effect on men so don't worry. they just spread it around.

Well, I think some types can (rarely) cause genital warts in men and other types can (very rarely) cause penile or anal cancer - but for the most part I'd say you're right. HPV doesn't usually bother men, but the possible health consequences for women - including death - are much more serious.

(Also, perhaps they didn't test men for HPV because there is no HPV test for men.)

Chlamydia is the same - it can cause serious health issues in women but rarely in men. Here's what the CDC has to say about it:

CDC wrote:

In women, untreated infection can spread into the uterus or fallopian tubes and cause pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). This happens in up to 40 percent of women with untreated chlamydia. PID can cause permanent damage to the fallopian tubes, uterus, and surrounding tissues. The damage can lead to chronic pelvic pain, infertility, and potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy outside the uterus). Women infected with chlamydia are up to five times more likely to become infected with HIV, if exposed.

Complications among men are rare. Infection sometimes spreads to the epididymis (the tube that carries sperm from the testis), causing pain, fever, and, rarely, sterility.

I think this makes HPV and chlamydia in women a greater public health concern than HPV and chlamydia in men.

GreenTeaDisease

scb wrote:

Well, I think some types can (rarely) cause genital warts in men and other types can (very rarely) cause penile or anal cancer - but for the most part I'd say you're right. HPV doesn't usually bother men, but the possible health consequences for women - including death - are much more serious.

(Also, perhaps they didn't test men for HPV because there is no HPV test for men.)

right. also, almost all people who have ever been sexually active carry some form of HPV. Saying a certain percentage of teenage girls has hpv is basically saying that percentage is sexually active. most hpv is harmless, even for women, there is just that certain type that leads to cervical cancer.

what I hate is that you can't get an hpv vaccine over the age of 26- it's all based on the assumption that most women are married by then. that's such a discriminatory load of shit!

Sludge Factory

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

hpv has no effect on men so don't worry. they just spread it around.

Well, in that case...anyone wanna "infect" me?

_

GreenTeaDisease wrote:

what I hate is that you can't get an hpv vaccine over the age of 26- it's all based on the assumption that most women are married by then. that's such a discriminatory load of shit!

I'm gonna give it some time and see what happens. I think there's still a lot more to learn. Maybe they think it's too late for those of us over 26! I'm hoping that someday it will be available to boys/men as well as girls/women.

PaperPlates

I do believe its due to the simple fact that its "easier" for a woman to contract an STD since she's more likely to ingest fluids. Men run less risk somewhat due to the fact that fluids are less likely to enter our body.

GreenTeaDisease

scb wrote:

I'm gonna give it some time and see what happens. I think there's still a lot more to learn. Maybe they think it's too late for those of us over 26! I'm hoping that someday it will be available to boys/men as well as girls/women.

well it's one of the two reasons and a combination of both. but I don't think the insurance companies should be making assumptions about people's sexuality based on age!