Posted by
Mhu Cao on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:41:05 PM
It's being widely reported that 1 in 4 teen females have an STD.
Although I believe the "1-in-4" number to be grossly overstated and self-servingly alarmist, I also believe that this epidemic, whatever its scope and magnitude, found its roots in the misguided, cynical, progressivism of the 1990's.
However, regarding the study, there are two issues (among others) that immediately come to mind:
1. Study sample issue, and
2. The "Virginity" issue
The underlying study may be defective because of the population that participated in the study - those questioned may have been in groups more likely to engage in sexual activity, to admit having sex, and to seek treatment for what they recognize as an illness.
The population sampled may be more sexually active, with less sexually active or sexually inactive teens not participating in the study. For example, teens in urban areas have far more access to public health facilities or private organizations like Planned Parenthood, than teens in smaller urban or rural areas. Sexually active teens in large urban areas may be more likely to go to such facilities.
So, less sexually active teens in large urban areas may not have been counted, as were teens in smaller urban or rural areas..
It is a common error with medical and sociological studies to confuse a large sample size, or a long sampling duration, with representation of a population as a whole, particularly when the study subjects are drawn primarily from urban areas. This is not to say that the teens in less populated areas are having less sex or are less likely to have an STD. We just don't know.
Also, many sexually active teens will not admit to engaging in sexual activity, even if they are given assurances of confidentiality. As a result, those who participated in the study were more likely to be open about their sexuality.
Again, away from a large urban setting, teens may be more reserved, fearing potential sanctions. As a result they (a) may not report their activity accurately or (b) just not engage in the behavior to the extent that urban youths do. I've observed such differences in behavior between youths in large urban areas and others. Although I can't say that my observations invalidate this study, they do raise questions.
Was the questionnaire administered to teens who recognized that their symptoms might be an STD, and also sought treatment for that illness? If so, the self-selection may artifically inflate the prevalence of STDs in teens.
The teens seeking medical attention for STD symptoms are those who recognize those symptoms as indicating a disease. Many teens just do not recognize illnesses, including STDs, if they are aymptomatic or do not have symptoms associated with a "disease," e.g., pain, bleeding, loss of function. These teens may attribute their symptoms to something "natural," or hygiene-related, or something merely embarrassing.
Ignorance, peer attitudes, parental attitudes, and the conflicting moralistic positions of political and religious groups also may tend to distort who steps forward. If the symptoms are in the genitourinary system, the teen may consult with a peer before they speak with a parent. These factors may tend to distort, and possibly undercount, STD prevalence among some subgroups.
The impact of symptoms driving diagnosis, and an admission of sexual activity, may significantly skew the study results, even if its extent may never be known.
One CDC presentation shows that, although syphilis and chlamydia dropped between 1996 and 2000, trichomonas, hepatitis, human papilloma virus, HIV, and herpes went up.
http://www.cdc.gov/STDConference/2004/PlenMiniPlen/Douglas.pps
This presentation may be related to the reported study, given some of the characteristics.
With the exception of herpes, and perhaps trich, most of the diseases listed as increasing in frequency are more insidious, having less overt symptoms. Teens may not be seeking treatment for an STD unless they have one that is symptomatic, or have another STD with disturbing symptoms. Open sores and a fishy smell might get a teen's attention. Other signs may not.
There are many questions that come to mind in the area of modern views on "virginity." All of the hoopla over abstinence has created a bizarre climate in which teens believe that oral or anal contact is safe sex, or do not constitute "sex" at all. It may not matter whether one spits or swallows, because contact itself may be enough. There's even the absurd notion of "born again" virginity! Be real!
What the liberals in government have done, for their gain, is to bait the religious right into a moral battle over teen sexuality and teen health. So, instead of the issues being focused on healthy sexual behavior consistent with future reproductive health and with life itself, they've turned it into a battle of right and wrong, good and bad, sin and virtue, with the teens taking the path of least resistance, and developing their own sexual sensibilities, while the adults are engaged in moralistic pissing wars.
Extrapolating study data to say that 1 in 4 female teens have an STD doesn't pass the sniff test (no pun intended), sounds alarmist, and brings the validity of the study's conclusion, if not the study itself, into question.
Even if the STD statistics are overstated, what that data show is that the intrusion of the govenment into the parent-child relationship, particularly with older teens, has created a disconnect between parents and older children, denying parents the opportunity to confront difficult issues head on, and leaving teens with the impression that they can turn to government as their authority and safe haven. It used to be "Go ask your mother/father." Now, it's "Go ask Uncle Sam." He'll say "Yes" anyway.
To those who doubt that, consider the propaganda about smoking and drugs - we are told that children *do* listen to their parents about those issues, we are told. In those public service ads, the goverment tells us that it is not the surrogate for the parents, in educating children about the risks of smoking and drugs. However, on sexual health and education matters, the government takes the opposite approach.
Indeed, the government has become the surrogate parent on all sexual matters. It is the arbiter of what parent are allowed to know about their childrens' health and medical matters. It also is the organization that shifts responsibility back to the parent for payment of complications of "confidential" health treatments, and to the kids (now adults) themselves for dealing with alterations to their reproductive potential by unsurpervised government-sanctioned treatments given during their teens.
Giving birth control pills, or providing "secret" abortions," to teen females under 18 years of age, without parental knowledge, is particularly outrageous. The anatomy and physiology of teens is far from settled, and administering these powerful drugs before physical maturity can be exceptionally risky. The parent may be kept out of the loop on matters that may profoundly, and adversely, impact their daughter's health and future reproductive capability.
The spike in STDs is the legacy of the Clinton "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" 90's. I'm afraid that children and young adults will never be provided with reliable, sensible, age-appropriate information. On one hand, progressives fight to front-load sexual education with gay and transgender issues, and hand out condoms to kids who have yet to sprout pub!c hair. On the other, religious zealots do everything in their power to obstruct even the most even-handed, age-appropriate, health-oriented sexual education.
In between children and young adults lack the scientific or factual knowledge to know what these diseases really are, to know how easily they can become infected, to understand how quickly they can become reproductively handicapped, or to make rational decisions about their bodies.
It's a clever but disingenuous trick to pick a fight with the religious zealots, because then the issue can be turned into a pitched battle of separation of church and state, with the state moving forward despite the objections of others. Both sides quibbled over avoiding pregnancy and abortion rights, when neither side saw the forest for the trees.
The focus is health care, not morals. By preventing disease, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions, can largely be averted. But, battling disease doesn't make the same political hay as pitting "right" vs. "wrong."
This was one way for Clintonian Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education to grow their budgets under the guise of a noble cause, when the players were totally incompetent in understanding the problem or the battle to be fought.
By the time 2001 rolled around, this "Don't Ask, Don't tell" ignorance had become ingrained throughout the public education and health care systems. On matters of sexual health, parents are considered to be the adversary. The children always are right. The children may turn to the government to protect them from parental scrutiny or debate on delicate matters. The government is your friend. Your parents are not to be trust