StarTribune.com

Abstinence


The “Everyone Does It” Hooey Keeps the STD Epidemic Going

Sunday, April 6th, 2008
Minnesota’s soaring rate of sexually transmitted disease [STD] is in the news again. At the national level, a recent study found that 25 percent of 14 to 19-year-old girls have at least one of four common STDs.  

The solution? Enlightened folks tell us it’s more sex education, counseling and treatment. They call for more tax-funded initiatives such as a $1.3 million bill for screening and public education recently considered by the Minnesota Legislature.

But few are talking about the real reason for the epidemic: too many kids are having sex at too young an age.

Try mentioning this at your next dinner party or parents meeting at school, and watch the eyes roll. What 1950s TV rerun are you living in? Sure, a little abstinence education never hurt anyone, the common wisdom goes, but we all know — wink, wink — that kids are going to “do it.”

This idea is one of the biggest cons of our generation. At least one group understands this — the 53 percent of high school students who reported that they had never had sexual intercourse in a 2005 survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Empowering? Give me a break

The con about youth sex is rooted in the myth behind the sexual revolution: that sex without restraints — doing what you feel — is both liberating and fundamental to human happiness. But in our sex-saturated culture, the opposite is true for many young people. It’s far from liberating to be at the mercy of frenzied adolescent impulses.

Here’s another myth: that young women are as eager to hop in the sack as young men. Surely, lots of women remember fighting off groping guys in high school and mashers at college frat parties. Sex with the average hormone-driven guy — who sometimes can’t wait to brag about “scoring” — is supposed to be enticing or empowering to women? Give me a break.

Shalom Ross of Hopkins, an 18-year-old freshman at the University of Minnesota, is one young woman who has chosen to remain abstinent until marriage.

But her experience at the U reveals one reason it’s hard to keep such vows. The adults in authority there — far from supporting her — are undercutting her and other young people who have opted for sexual self-discipline and true love.

Ross cites a skit she saw at the U of M orientation in June. It portrayed a guy and a girl who get involved in sex shortly after their relationship begins. “The focus was supposed to be ’safe sex,’” Ross says. “But the underlying message to students was that sex is inevitable, no big deal — everyone is doing it.”

Ironically, Ross says, students at the U tend to be “much more broad-minded” about her decision than the people in authority. “Students respect the choice I’ve made, because they know the decision about sex is a ‘big deal,’” she says.

Ross says: “They see the harm that sex can do, and quite a few regret the choices they’ve made.”

Research confirms that premarital sex puts young women at significant risk, not only for pregnancy and STDs, but also for related problems like infertility. They also risk psychological harm such as depression, suicidal thoughts and what Ross calls “the feeling of worthlessness that comes after being around the block a few times.”

Women have more to lose from sex — especially casual sex — than men. Why then are so many engaging in it?

Not surprisingly, young women often believe that they need to be “sexually active” if they want to be normal, to fit in. “Many women long for real intimacy, and they want to nab a guy,” Ross says. “If you feel some deep connection through sex, you think the guy would feel that, too.”

But sex without commitment is not erotic. In fact, it can be numbing, and it’s caustic to human dignity. That’s why, in surveys, it’s monogamous married women — not swingers — who report the highest sexual satisfaction.

Wendy Shalit summed it up this way in her 1999 book, “A Return to Modesty”: “When we humans act like animals, without any restraint and without any rules, we just don’t have as much fun.”  

Young men also pay a price for casual sex. In college, I knew a Brad Pitt look-alike who confessed that whenever he woke up with a strange woman, he felt a little ashamed. “All I can think of,” he told me, is, ‘How can I get out of here without her noticing?’”

In the world of Paris Hilton, our young people — especially young women — are searching for socially supported ways to say no. They need to hear from us — their parents, teachers and medical caregivers — that self-restraint is not only possible, but desirable, and that real happiness comes from respecting your own dignity and that of others.

Why Does the AIDS Establishment Reject the Prevention Approach that Works?

Friday, April 4th, 2008

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is a disaster. And no one seems to have a solution.

Or do they? Christian churches have devised the most promising approach, say Edward Green and Allison Ruark of Harvard University’s AIDS Prevention Research Project, writing in First Things. Trouble is, it’s based on concepts of abstinence and sexual fidelity, which are highly unpopular with the global AIDS establishment.

That establishment continues to cling to certain “myths” about the causes of the epidemic, write Green and Ruark. For example: “Poverty and discrimination are the problem.” “Condoms are the answer.” “Sexual behavior will not change.”

Such notions, say the authors,

are held as self-evident truths by many in the AIDS establishment. And they result in efforts that are at best ineffective and at worst harmful, while the AIDS epidemic continues to spread and exact a devastating toll in human lives.

Prevention efforts that focus primarily on pushing condoms don’t work. Why? For one thing, “few people outside a handful of high-risk groups use condoms consistently, no matter how vigorously condoms are promoted,” the authors write. In this connection, they cite a UNAIDS-commissioned 2004 review of condom use, which found “no definite examples yet of generalized epidemics that have been turned back by prevention programs based primarily on condom promotion.”

In contrast, Christian churches use the “ABC” approach — “Abstain. Be Faithful, or use Condoms” – whose core is “deep changes” in sexual behavior. According to Green and Ruark, every African country where HIV infections have declined has seen a decrease in the proportion of men and women reporting more than one sexual partner in a year. The other factor associated with a decrease in infections is a decline in premarital sex among young people.

The authors conclude,

If AIDS prevention is to be based on evidence rather than ideology or bias, then fidelity and abstinence programs need to be at the center of programs for general populations.

Uganda provides a good example of the positive results that profound behavior change can bring:

A 2001 study of condom use in rural Uganda found that only 4.4 percent of the population reported consistent usage in the previous year, a rate that is probably typical of much of Africa.

In contrast to the estimated 95 percent or more of Africans who did not practice consistent condom use in the past year, studies from all over Africa show a solid majority of men and women reporting fidelity over the past year, with a majority of unmarried young men and women reporting abstinence.

Why is the AIDS establishment so hostile to prevention approaches that seek to change behavior? At the 2006 International AIDS Conference in Toronto, Bill Gates was actually booed when he mentioned fidelity and abstinence.

Green and Ruark suggest one reason:

It is not in the interest of a multi-billion dollar global AIDS industry to endorse interventions that are low-cost and homegrown and that rely on simple behavior change rather than medical products or services provided by outside experts.

And they pose a related question: Is the AIDS establishment “more concerned with upholding a Western notion of sexual freedom or with saving lives?”

How terrible to have to ask.

The Deadly Epidemic among American Girls, and the Solution We Choose to Ignore

Friday, March 14th, 2008

What would you conclude if I told you that 25 percent of 14 to 19-year-old girls, including nearly 50 percent of African-American girls, are infected with a disease that can create serious risk of infertility or cancer? You would call that an alarming epidemic, and join in the public outcry for promising prevention or treatment.

What if I added that a method of prevention had indeed been discovered – one that is 100 percent effective? You would, I suspect, do your best to make sure every girl is aware of and adopts this preventive step.

But that’s not how things work in the upside-down world of sexually transmitted diseases. With STD’s, we’re not only ignoring the 100 percent solution, we’re openly trash-talking it.

The alarming extent of the epidemic was recently announced after the federal government’s first national study of four common STDs. One in four American girls between the ages of 14 and 19 are infected by at least one of the major STDs: human papillomavirus, chlamydia, genital herpes and trichomoniasis, according to the New York Times.

The effects can be devastating:

Women may be unaware they are infected. But the diseases, which are infections caused by bacteria, viruses and parasites, can produce acute symptoms like irritating vaginal discharge, painful pelvic inflammatory disease and potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy. The infections can also lead to long-term ailments like infertility and cervical cancer.

Federal officials are facing this catastrophe with the usual half-measures. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are promoting more screening and vaccinations, according to the Times, but no one quoted by the Times is talking about abstinence, the preventive measure that is 100 percent effective.

Well, almost no one. There is one organization talking about abstinence — Planned Parenthood — but only to heap scorn on it. PP’s president, Cecile Richards, has other ideas. She says the new findings “emphasize the need for real comprehensive sex education,” reports the Times.

Haven’t we heard the worn-out sex ed tune for about 40 years now? Haven’t we tried every way possible to smother our kids with sex ed, almost from the moment they set foot in school? Are we supposed to wait another 40 years for something positive—and risk the health of more 14 and 15-year-old girls while we wait?

Richards and her type seem to operate under the assumption that a girl must have sex at the age of 14 or 15 or she will be denied a fundamental human right. How else to explain why none of the “experts” quoted by the Times even mentions the possibility of deferring an activity that greatly increases the risk of huge health problems?

But wait, might be the retort, if we amply supply our 14 year-old daughters with contraceptives, they can give in to their boyfriends’ demands without fear. The Food and Drug Administration throws cold water on this one, according to the Times:

The Food and Drug Administration has said in a report that latex condoms are ‘highly effective’ at preventing infection by chlamydia, trichomoniasis, H.I.V., gonorrhea and hepatitis B. The agency noted that condoms seemed less effective against genital herpes and syphilis. Protection against human papillomavirus ‘is partial at best,’ the report said.

As I said: there’s only one sure-fire way for teenage girls who want to avoid this health menace. Are we going to be straight with them about it?

Katherine Kersten writes a weekly column for the Star Tribune's Sunday Opinion Exchange section. The column covers a broad range of topics reflecting her experiences and interests.

In this blog, she will address many of the same issues, albeit in quicker, less formal fashion, along with pointing readers to other sources of interesting online commentary and coverage.