Underage pregnancies

[Astralinre]

Look, if you want your child to abstain from , just telling them that it's bad and that they're risking their immortal souls by doing it before marriage is not the way to go about it.

 

 

 

No one said that the only way to tell them to abstain was to say stupid things.

 

 

 

How about talking about committment, what represents to you as a couple - maybe talk about the mental and emotional aspects to as well - talk about what the female views as, what the male views as, instead of slipping a in their pocket with a wink :?

 

 

 

Exactly, or instead of telling them how bad sex is, make sure they know how good it is. I'm waiting until marriage not because I think sex is dirty, but because I believe it to be something special, something almost sacred, and that to take sex out of its proper context (marriage) is to deprive yourself of fully seeing how wonderful it is. I wouldn't commit an act that intimate unless it's with the woman I'm going to spend the rest of my life with.

[Fat_Slug]

i think education is the key.... in a way i agree with what necromagus said. its what happened to me.

 

my mom didn't give me condoms so to speak, but made sure that if i ever did decide to do the dead then i'd have her to think about. as it happens she need not have worried, my eldest sister went down the underage pregnancy route and no way was i going to join her.

 

 

 

sex is a good thing for people to enjoy and imo age isn't an issue (legally it is) its whether the people involved are mature enough to do the deed, and take the consequences if a female gets pregnant. some are ready at 14 others alot older.

[Anesthesia]

How about talking about committment, what sex represents to you as a couple - maybe talk about the mental and emotional aspects to sex as well - talk about what the female views sex as, what the male views sex as, instead of slipping a condom in their pocket with a wink :?

 

 

 

I don't think he meant that that can't be done as well.

 

 

 

I'd like to clarify my position; whilst I am against promoting abstinence I am most certainly not promoting promiscuity or sex without thought. I think that what you have said in the above quote is a very important thing to do.

[FuBai]

1. I don't read the sun, perhaps you ignored the fact that I cycle past council estates on my way to college every day? First hand experience.

 

 

 

2. You ignore basic facts such as how much money we're spending on this area of wellfare.

 

 

 

3. You seem unaware of the fact these people do not work and many do not contribute to society.

 

 

 

That's waht they said about the death sentance in America - America has more murders by percentage of population than the UK

 

 

 

 

Abortion is not killing, I proved this earlier on, perhaps you need reading lessons

 

 

 

4. You're a pompous moron.

 

 

 

OMG! I didn;t agree with him, that makes me a pompous moron =D>

 

 

 

Did i say abortion was killing...OH NO, yet againt I DID NOT! What I sad was bringing in harsher punishment does not prevent crime. Forinstance the death penalty in America has not lowered thier Crime in the 38 states that still execute people. Learn to read.

 

 

 

We can seriously afford to spend that much on welfare. We are so bloody rich we are giving it a way free to Africa. Yes I think Welfare spending is excessive, but you fail to concider the fact that the children and the mothers are people, not selfish, money gobbling automatons.

 

 

 

Wait...you have first hand experience? I'm sorry, driving past the slums and waving at the starving children is not first hand experience. How about you got kicked out of your house, only had one parent who earnt less than 10,000 a year, and couldnt even afford to go to colledge. That is first had experience.

 

 

 

As I have said, Britain's unemployment rate is 11%. That means that 9/10 people are working. That includes these children of teenage pregnancies. They have jobs. I don't know where you get your evidence from, but I can substanciate mine on request.

 

 

 

SO next time you get your stick an enjoy "Happy toff's Poor wacking day"

 

actualy think about the people, rather than the small drain it causes on you daddy's pocket.

[Quer_Skulll]

Holland has the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the western world, and all kids get sex ed in the first or year of high school (12-13 years old), including hygiene, anticonception and STDs. I think we might be on to something here :-k

 

 

 

Where I go to school (North Carolina, in the U.S.A), we get our "sex ed" in 5th grade, which is about the age of 10-11

 

 

 

same in holland, mess up from necromagus i think.

 

 

 

 

 

caligula.. you selfish..

 

 

 

Shhhh. You cannot beat that which is never beaten.

 

 

 

Well, that and I just don't care. What the guy said was dumb, so I told him. Where this was invalid to you is beyond me. You want to be the creepy parent slipping condoms into your child's pocket saying "It's okay, go have sex with anything that walks!" too? Okay, go for it. I just feel sorry for the kid.

 

 

 

there other ways to be open about it, giving your child a condom and talking openly about sex is a good thing the chance that he uses it before he turns about 15 is very small but if by any chance he does, he is prepared.

 

your talking as if we're talking about a 5 year old.. 5 year old's do not feel sexual urges yet or are in any case sexualy developed.

 

 

 

If you all giggled in pre-school when the subject of sexual education came on doesn't mean it shouldnt be done, continueing this education around 2/3 a year every year will definitly help as there is one day when you all will stop giggling and want to hear what the man/woman says.

 

 

 

tho there is one form of esxual education that i don't like.. the one where they show how every sexual disease looks like, it's shock therapy :ohnoes:

[caligula101]

I've shown you my suggestion Fubai, you seem to think that we have money therefore we should waste it. You act like the money could be spent on nothing else other than wellfare. You act like there is not a problem with the amount of underage pregnancies currently in Britain. I think it is you that cannot open your eyes and see the world as it is today. Perhaps you should leave your sheltered life and go discover things instead of making up evidence to support your claims.

 

 

 

My suggestion would be the most effective and would stop them from breeding, if you don't like it, tough.

[FuBai]

I've shown you my suggestion Fubai, you seem to think that we have money therefore we should waste it.

 

 

 

No, I simply stated the fact that we can afford to do so, many times I qualified it by saying that I don't think we should, but that we still can.

 

 

 

You act like the money could be spent on nothing else other than wellfare.

 

 

 

Where did I say that? Looks like you haven't been reading again. Every time I say that we can spend money on it, I say that welfare spending is excessive. But I want you to realise that the child is a real human being, the Mother is a real human being. The Government of the UK has to be concerend with protecting its citzens from poverty, starvation and ill-health. It is one of the main principles in government in the UK today - even Thatcher didn;t get rid of the NHS. I dissagree with many points in the Welfare system, but I recognise that without adaquate provision the children produced will be abandoned, or the mothers will starve trying to keep both alive. And don't give me that crap about the teenagers not concieveing - its not like they plan to do it before hand, they just bonk away, not thinking of the consequences. How do we solve that? Education, Education, Eductaion. And I don't even like Labour.

 

 

 

 

 

You act like there is not a problem with the amount of underage pregnancies currently in Britain. I think it is you that cannot open your eyes and see the world as it is today.

 

 

 

Underage pregnancies are a problem. Education is the way to deal with them. Look at Holland. I have seen the world as it is today, I have worked with people who are nto nearly as wlel off as me - I have worked with a Barristers firm for a few weeks, meeting people accused of murder, GBH, drug suppling and theft. You just cycle past everymorning saying "Dam, another young mother, that another about 1/1000000th of a penny that my daddy pays in tax down the drain. That could have gone towards tax cuts so we can be even richer."

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you should leave your sheltered life and go discover things instead of making up evidence to support your claims.

 

 

 

I'm sorry...my sheltered life? And are you accusing me of making up evidence for my claims? Well I can produce evidence to back them all up - you haven't even tried to.

 

 

 

My suggestion would be the most effective and would stop them from breeding, if you don't like it, tough.

 

 

 

Wait a minutie you have said two things wrong in one sentance. Firstly, your suggestion wouldn't work, for all the reasons I have stated before, which you seem to have ignored because they don;t fit into the Tory world plan. Secondly, this is a public forum for d-e-b-a-t-e. If I don't like your view, then I will criticise it. You would get no support for that idea what so ever form the general populace. Or even the academics. Seriously, have you ever even been to a debating society? well, obvioulsy not, or you would be a small embarassing stain on thier shirt fronts.

 

 

 

This is coming from someone who is right wing, economicaly at least, and doesnt believe that welfare should be nearly as big as it is.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

I didn't say abstinence worked well for a good intimate relationship, I just said that abstinence works well as birth control. You're reading too much into it :P if you don't have sex, you don't get a kid (99.999999% of the time). That's all I meant.

 

 

 

But your post brought up a point - let's agree that sex is vital to a healthy intimate relationship. Let's also agree that people are physically ready to have sex as young as 11 (as seen in the quoted article). Does this mean that people are mentally, emotionally, socially, economically, etc, ready to be having sex? Sex is a primarily physical act, but there are so many more factors surrounding it. Do you think that teenagers, while physically ready to have sex, are mentally ready to have a serious relationship? I would tend to think not.

 

 

 

Yeah that might be true but promoting as a viable form of 'contraception' is silly. It's pretty clear from this thread and general statistics that it doesn't work in practice, so why should it be even discussed as if it does work?

 

 

 

Exactly, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why the age is 16 not 11; it takes into consideration mental development. Social and Financial burdens shouldn't really factor into the equation if you are properly educated on how to prevent pregnancy. If someone really wants a baby they are going to have one regardless of their financial position.

 

 

 

Sorry if it seems that I might be aggressive in my posts, I just tend to write a lot.

[pianofrieak2]

 

I didn't say abstinence worked well for a good intimate relationship, I just said that abstinence works well as birth control. You're reading too much into it :P if you don't have sex, you don't get a kid (99.999999% of the time). That's all I meant.

 

 

 

But your post brought up a point - let's agree that sex is vital to a healthy intimate relationship. Let's also agree that people are physically ready to have sex as young as 11 (as seen in the quoted article). Does this mean that people are mentally, emotionally, socially, economically, etc, ready to be having sex? Sex is a primarily physical act, but there are so many more factors surrounding it. Do you think that teenagers, while physically ready to have sex, are mentally ready to have a serious relationship? I would tend to think not.

 

 

 

Yeah that might be true but promoting as a viable form of 'contraception' is silly. It's pretty clear from this thread and general statistics that it doesn't work in practice, so why should it be even discussed as if it does work?

 

 

 

Exactly, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why the age is 16 not 11; it takes into consideration mental development. Social and Financial burdens shouldn't really factor into the equation if you are properly educated on how to prevent pregnancy. If someone really wants a baby they are going to have one regardless of their financial position.

 

 

 

Sorry if it seems that I might be aggressive in my posts, I just tend to write a lot.

 

 

 

Actually, I can think of 10 people at least that have verbalized their commitment to abstinence, and so has 2-3 other people on this board. Just because our society doesn't have an adequate self-control level doesn't mean we just say "oh, too bad, and here's a condom."

 

 

 

And besides, one isn't psychologically ready at the age of 16 either. It's when they become an adult and learn how to take care of themselves when they're ready to BEGIN to try to take care of a baby.

[Tigra00]

I'm curious if most of you just completely skipped your teenage years.

 

 

 

If you give you child a condom before he goes out, he will use it that night. I gaurentee it. If you simply tell him "Use one whenever you have sex, if you don't, you're going to get some girl pregnant." or better yet, change "you're going to get some girl pregnant" with "I'll stomp your freakin' head in."

 

 

 

I can only assume you guys had the creepiest, lamest parents one Earth and I will then consider myself lucky to have had parents that weren't...well, crazy. My mom and dad simply told me, wait for sex 'til you're ready, but when you are, you better use a condom or I'll kick your [wagon]. It was obviously effective, as I'm 19 and have yet to impregnate anyone!

 

 

 

I still say you're all going to be creepy parents.

[Anesthesia]

If you give you child a condom before he goes out, he will use it that night. I gaurentee it.

 

 

 

What an absolute load of arse. Total claptrap.

 

 

 

First, that assumes he will find someone who fancies him.

 

Second, it assumes that said person will want to have sex.

 

Third, it assumes that he himself will want to have sex that night with that person.

 

 

 

Seeing as you're taking a pop at the parents of everyone here, I think your parents must have been stupid, to have let you become so thick that you think someone will see a condom and think "at LAST! NOW I CAN FINALLY HAVE SEX!". If someone had that mentality then they would have had sex long before.

 

 

 

I am surprised your parents didn't put you in a special school if you think you can 'gaurentee' (I assume you mean guarantee - your parents should have taught you better spelling) they will have sex that night.

[Tigra00]

If you give you child a condom before he goes out, he will use it that night. I gaurentee it.

 

 

 

What an absolute load of arse. Total claptrap.

 

 

 

First, that assumes he will find someone who fancies him.

 

Second, it assumes that said person will want to have sex.

 

Third, it assumes that he himself will want to have sex that night with that person.

 

 

 

Quiet, you bridge-dwelling fairy-tale creature.

 

 

 

Finding someone who would want to have sex with him would be easy. Teenage girl's aren't known for their self-control on the subject of sex. More-so than boys, one could argue, but they're awarded no points.

 

 

 

See above.

 

 

 

Name one teenage boy that would say "You know, I really would like to have sex, but not with you."

 

 

 

Honestly, like I said, did you skip your teenage years? Most teenage boys will have sex with anyone who shows interest. If you are not aware of this, then congradulations - You're like me and you're not one of those boys. Pat yourself on the back, you're extremely rare.

[Anesthesia]

Name one teenage boy that would say "You know, I really would like to have sex, but not with you."

 

 

 

So you'd have sex with someone who is breathtakingly ugly? How about I just reel off the names of every teenage male I ever knew when they were faced with a munter.

 

 

 

You sound like you're just very desperate for sex, is that it? You seem to think that all teenage boys are and, lets face it, you are a teenager - so that means you'll shag anything that moves (and sometimes not that discriminating)?

 

 

 

It just shows how much you know if you think the majority of teenage males (let alone everyone) is like that.

 

 

 

Idiot :roll:

[Tigra00]

Name one teenage boy that would say "You know, I really would like to have sex, but not with you."

 

 

 

So you'd have sex with someone who is breathtakingly ugly? How about I just reel off the names of every teenage male I ever knew when they were faced with a munter.

 

 

 

You sound like you're just very desperate for sex, is that it? You seem to think that all teenage boys are and, lets face it, you are a teenager - so that means you'll shag anything that moves (and sometimes not that discriminating)?

 

 

 

It just shows how much you know if you think the majority of teenage males (let alone everyone) is like that.

 

 

 

Idiot :roll:

 

 

 

I'm an adult, senor.

 

 

 

If you'd read my post, as I said, I'm not one of these people, nor was I in my teen's, but guess what? Every single one of my friends were! EVERY. LAST. ONE. That is why I do not speak to most of them anymore - They're losers in my mind.

 

 

 

As I said, yes, a majority (devistatingly GREAT majority, sadly) of teenage boys will even have sex with the ugliest woman they know. Girls seem to be a bit more choosey, however. Give 'em a point for that, if you will.

 

 

 

I've known many respectable looking guys who have had sex with someone they've admitted was fat, ugly, etc. Why did they do it? Because they wanted to have sex that night. Period.

 

 

 

Like I said, again, did you skip your teenage years? I mean certainly, even if you're NOT like this (obviously you're not), you would surely know someone who is.

 

 

 

And you repeated what I said, which is something you got at me for last night doing to someone else. Revise your "flaming" technique. You're not very good. I've seen better on the WoW forums, and that's pretty bad.

[Anesthesia]

I'm an adult, senor.

 

 

 

I'm 19

 

 

 

You're a teenager. Does nine[n]teen[/b] end with teen? I think it does. You are a teenager.

 

 

 

As I said, yes, a majority (devistatingly GREAT majority, sadly) of teenage boys will even have sex with the ugliest woman they know.

 

 

 

Ahh yes and by extension that applies to everyone all over the entire world. You know everything, after all.

 

 

 

Like I said, again, did you skip your teenage years?

 

 

 

I didn't, but I'm starting to think you made yours up.

 

 

 

 

 

I mean certainly, even if you're NOT like this (obviously you're not), you would surely know someone who is.

 

 

 

Yes, of course I did. Two people out of hundreds. <2% != a majority.

[the_blob23]

Teenage pregnancy is a massive problem in the US and no small problem in the UK. This thread has largely turned into a debate about abstinence and other forms of contraception. Medically and scientifically, the promotion of abstinence in sex education has been a miserable failure.

 

 

 

Condoms work. This has been scientifically verified. Only two percent of couples who use latex condoms correctly and consistently as their main form of contraception will have unintended pregnancies (Hatcher, et al., 2004).

 

 

 

Education works. By teaching kids about the reproductive system and outlining methods of safe sex, teenage pregnancy can be reduced.

 

 

 

Abstinence doesn't work. There have been no peer-reviewed medical studies that support the notion of abstinence as the primary form of contraception. How is abstinence even defined? Can one have oral sex and still be considered a virgin? If so, then the effectiveness of abstinence against STDs is greatly overrated. Most contraceptives are evaluated by their "perfect use" (used correctly every time) and "typical use" (accounts for human error and inconsistency) effectiveness. While abstinence has 100% effectiveness against pregnancy in the area of perfect use, there is no data on its typical use. How many people abandon abstinence in their later years of adolescence? There are probably many people who break their vows. From pregnancy to HIV prevention and treatment, the advocates of abstinence are deeply wrong about the effectiveness of the method they promote.

[caligula101]

I'm fed up of trying to steer this debate in the way I want it to so i'm not going to try anymore. My idea seems to have fallen upon deaf ears,that and idiotic ones. Continue your debate about abstinence, some good points made by IceNomad.

[French]

I'm fed up of trying to steer this debate in the way I want it to so i'm not going to try anymore. My idea seems to have fallen upon deaf ears,that and idiotic ones. Continue your debate about abstinence, some good points made by IceNomad.

 

 

 

 

 

Alot to hear from someone who shares the name of an insane Roman emperor... :shame: =D>

[caligula101]

What's that supposed to mean!?

[insane]

While abstinence has 100% effectiveness against pregnancy in the area of perfect use, there is no data on its typical use.

 

 

 

That's because abstinence is discrete. You either abstain, or you don't. There is no such thing as "incorrect abstinence", since there isn't a level, or range, to look at. It's black and white, no grey areas. With other forms of contraception, there is a possibility of incorrect use - with abstinence, there is only the possibility of no use at all, making "typical use" obsolete, since it isn't possible.

[mad4u689]

Yes, but in a similar way, you could say "You either use a condom or you don't" - in that, if the condom stays on, and is used for the entire duration of sex and not just the, er, finale - there is virtually no chance of getting pregnant. But accidents happen, either in condom use (it fell off! There was pre-ejaculate fluid! It tore!) or in abstinence "use" (I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing! We didn't have ACTUAL sex, how could this have happened?) It's easy to differentiate, but if you're going to argue that abstinence is a method of contraception (which I think is spotty in the first place) you need to take the ideas about what constitutes methodology into account, as well.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Actually, I can think of 10 people at least that have verbalized their commitment to abstinence, and so has 2-3 other people on this board. Just because our society doesn't have an adequate self-control level doesn't mean we just say "oh, too bad, and here's a condom."

 

 

 

And besides, one isn't psychologically ready at the age of 16 either. It's when they become an adult and learn how to take care of themselves when they're ready to BEGIN to try to take care of a baby.

 

 

 

And of everyone that commits to abstinence, how many go through with it? What happens if you have a girlfriend you really like and want to be with and she brings it up? It's kind of like being straight edge, you don't want to do drugs because you haven't had a good enough opportunity to do so (its illegal under 21 and you can't visit any nice bars), however when your given a good opportunity many recant on the spot.

 

 

 

Why arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t they psychologically ready? At 16 teens start to accept many adult responsibilities such as driving (becoming more independent and responsible for other peoples safety) and taking a bigger role in maintaining the house (cleaning, cooking, paying bills at the post office etc.), why shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t we include sex? It's pretty clear at this point of time teens start to understand what it means to be responsible. Just because you know a few kids who have a total lack of self-control doesn't mean its the same for everyone else.

 

 

 

 

That's because abstinence is discrete. You either abstain, or you don't. There is no such thing as "incorrect abstinence", since there isn't a level, or range, to look at. It's black and white, no grey areas. With other forms of contraception, there is a possibility of incorrect use - with abstinence, there is only the possibility of no use at all, making "typical use" obsolete, since it isn't possible.

 

 

 

So going back on your abstinence pledge isn't incorrect use? Wouldn't your inability to use a condom (or other forms of contraception) correctly go back on the pledge you made to your partner that you are going to have safe sex? Surely that shouldn't count either because you made the effort to try, the result shouldn't matter.

 

 

 

 

I can only assume you guys had the creepiest, lamest parents one Earth and I will then consider myself lucky to have had parents that weren't...well, crazy. My mom and dad simply told me, wait for sex 'til you're ready, but when you are, you better use a condom or I'll kick your wagon. It was obviously effective, as I'm 19 and have yet to impregnate anyone!

 

 

 

I still say you're all going to be creepy parents.

 

 

 

Load of bull, my mother gave me a packet of condoms when I was 14/15 and the situation was nothing like you described. Handing out condoms is a good idea since younger people tend to be more embarrassed in the situation of buying condoms, regardless they are ready or not. I had a similar talk to you, "If you are ready and have sex make sure you use protection; here are some condoms to keep spare so that you will always be prepared for when you want to have sex." How they hell is that any more of an endorsement of sex then your parents method? Guess what I have yet to impregnate anyone either, it must have been effective!

[pianofrieak2]

Condoms do not do anything close to what the media and planned parenthood portray. Here's a great news article to read about the uselessness of condoms in preventing HPV, an incurable STD infecting millions of adults and the leading cause of cervical cancer, being the second highest killer of women.

 

 

 

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/oth ... condon.htm

 

 

 

Oddly enough, it was in the Massachusetts news.

 

 

 

Here are some quotes:

 

"Condoms appear to provide little, if any, protection against HPV, one of the most common sexual diseases in America today and one that causes cervical cancer." Medical Institute for Sexual Health.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "Condoms can prevent the spread of many diseases, but not HPV. HPV is found on all the genital tissues, and a condom on the penis usually will not prevent transmission of HPV." Louisiana State University Medical Center.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "Human Papillomavirus, thought of as the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâseedÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ of cervical cancer, is a regional rather than localized disease, and its infectivity is not contained by condoms." John V. Dervin, M.D., associate specialist in radiology and assistant clinical professor, University of California, San Francisco.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "everal studies have shown that condoms do not protect against this virus (HPV)."

 

 

 

Kenneth L. Noller, M.D., professor and chairman, department of obstetrics/gynecology, University of Massachusetts School of Medicine; past chairman of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice; and past president of the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "Condom use is of little or no value in protecting patients from papilloma infection." Thomas V. Sedlacek, M.D., chairman, department of gynecology, Graduate Hospital, Philadelphia.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "Condoms are useless in preventing HPV transmission, because the virus is spread by cells that are shed onto the scrotum, which then comes into contact with vulvar skin." Michael Campion, M.D., director of gynecologic endoscopy at Graduate Hospital, Philadelphia.

[insane]

 

 

 

 

That's because abstinence is discrete. You either abstain, or you don't. There is no such thing as "incorrect abstinence", since there isn't a level, or range, to look at. It's black and white, no grey areas. With other forms of contraception, there is a possibility of incorrect use - with abstinence, there is only the possibility of no use at all, making "typical use" obsolete, since it isn't possible.

 

 

 

So going back on your abstinence pledge isn't incorrect use? Wouldn't your inability to use a condom (or other forms of contraception) correctly go back on the pledge you made to your partner that you are going to have safe sex? Surely that shouldn't count either because you made the effort to try, the result shouldn't matter.

 

 

 

Going back on your abstinence pledge isn't incorrect use, it's no use whatsoever. Whereas using any other kind of contraception can involve incorrect use while being used, abstinence either happens or doesn't, there's no middle ground - if you're using it, you're using it correctly. It is impossible to abstain incorrectly, because as soon as something happens, it's not abstinence anymore.

[mad4u689]

Condoms do not do anything close to what the media and planned parenthood portray. Here's a great news article to read about the uselessness of condoms in preventing HPV, an incurable STD infecting millions of adults and the leading cause of cervical cancer, being the second highest killer of women.

 

 

 

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/oth ... condon.htm

 

 

 

Oddly enough, it was in the Massachusetts news.

 

 

 

Here are some quotes:

 

"Condoms appear to provide little, if any, protection against HPV, one of the most common sexual diseases in America today and one that causes cervical cancer." Medical Institute for Sexual Health.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "Condoms can prevent the spread of many diseases, but not HPV. HPV is found on all the genital tissues, and a condom on the * usually will not prevent transmission of HPV." Louisiana State University Medical Center.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "Human Papillomavirus, thought of as the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâseedÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ of cervical cancer, is a regional rather than localized disease, and its infectivity is not contained by condoms." John V. Dervin, M.D., associate specialist in radiology and assistant clinical professor, University of California, San Francisco.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "everal studies have shown that condoms do not protect against this virus (HPV)."

 

 

 

Kenneth L. Noller, M.D., professor and chairman, department of obstetrics/gynecology, University of Massachusetts School of Medicine; past chairman of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice; and past president of the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "Condom use is of little or no value in protecting patients from papilloma infection." Thomas V. Sedlacek, M.D., chairman, department of gynecology, Graduate Hospital, Philadelphia.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââ "Condoms are useless in preventing HPV transmission, because the virus is spread by cells that are shed onto the scrotum, which then comes into contact with vulvar skin." Michael Campion, M.D., director of gynecologic endoscopy at Graduate Hospital, Philadelphia.

 

 

 

They are, however, coming out with vaccines for HPV, which should hopefully be taken (especially by women) in conjunction the regular condom use (or, if you're monogamous and both STD-tested, another reliable birth control method).

 

 

 

Also, there are two common strains of HPV, one of which is very common and leads to the statistic about infecting millions of adults; the OTHER less common strain is the one that causes cervical cancer. Either way, of course, you should try not to get it :D