'Abstinent' teens test positive for STDs

Washington Times ^ | 1/3/2011 | Cheryl Wetzstein

[markomalley]

More than 10 percent of teens who said they were abstinent also tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease, says a study in Pediatrics released Monday — a figure public health advocates say justifies screening all teens for such diseases.

Study author Jessica McDermott Sales, a research assistant professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education at Emory University, said STD screenings should happen, regardless of what they say about their sexual histories.

"These infections can have some pretty major consequences for young people … . It's worth the urine test," she said.

The study was based on data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health ("Add Health"), which has tracked thousands of teens and young adults for more than a decade.

In Wave 3 of Add Health, about 14,000 youth agreed to provide a urine specimen to check for three STDs — gonorrhea, chlamydia and trichomoniasis.

More than 11,000 of these youth said they had had sexual intercourse in the last 12 months, while the remaining 3,000 youth reported no sexual intercourse during that time.

The STD tests came back positive for 964 youth.

The vast majority of these STD results occurred in youth who said they had had sexual intercourse in the last year.

But 118 youth who denied having sexual intercourse also tested positive for an STD. In fact, 60 of these young people said they had never had sexual intercourse in their lives.

[Joe 6-pack]

"I find it FAR MORE LIKELY that they (gasp!) LIED."

If you read the article, the parameter set to define "abstinent" was no sex in the last year. I find it just as plausible that they might have contracted their STD prior to that window.

[allmendream]

True enough. It always helps when you look at what the samples actually ARE, not what they are purported to be.

But most teenagers who have not had sex within the last year were hardly ‘abstaining’. If they were then every day of my life I am ‘abstaining’ from having sex with all the hot actresses in L.A..

[Wuli]

“Until those 10% start spreading the STDs around town.”

And whose fault would that be???

“The public’s” because they didn’t pass a stupid law making it mandatory that EVERY teen get regular blood tests for STDs???

Or stupid people who have unprotected sexual intercourse with persons with whom they have no assurance that such persons have not been sexually active with third parties??

All laws intended to make promiscuity “safer” are actually laws to make promiscuity easier; as if by escaping “physical health” problems that can arise from promiscuity that EVERYTHING ELSE is thus “O.K.”; when, in fact, promiscuity, with or without physical health consequences, is, by its nature, fraught with many other risks of adverse consequences to the long term health and happiness of the individual; whether or not any of those consequences are voiced as a religious issue of “sin”.

The major focus on merely successfully “avoiding STDs”, through legislation to require STD blood tests, is a diversion from the wholesale consequences of promiscuity, and IS intended to simply remove one more potential obstacle to seemingly “successful” promiscuity.

Better that people actually fear EVERY consequence of promiscuity and thereby maybe avoid being promiscuous more often than not - which DOES seem to be the case with the overwhelming majority - 90% - among those that profess some adherence to abstinence. If EVERYONE took THEIR position, maybe the 90% figure would be found among the population as a whole, and that in itself would be a major accomplishment.

In the end, YOU are responsible for knowing what you need to protect your health from consequences of your intimate human relationships and no law can absolutely insure otherwise, unless your own Liberty is the victim of the law as well.