Re: 'Tell youngsters about values, not condoms'

[Guest guest]

Dear FORUM,

Re: /message/9891

" Instead of telling our  children to use condoms and thus encourage sex at a

young age, we decided to teach them good values and keep them away from sex.''

Now that is scary.

To me, such proclamations are indicators of troubled times ahead....Such

insistence on teaching Indian values smacks of

arrogance ( Our 'superior culture' v/s other inferior cultures),'denial' (that

they actually dont work),ignorance (' poor

success rates of such inerventions, hypocrisy and some times even

neglect of responsibility.

The least they can do is to atleast add or re-introduce  condom

education to their campaigns which hammers down the 'good values'.

Sreejit PHDC

E-mail: <emsree@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum members,

Re: /message/9903

Although I am in full agreement with Sreejit on the issue but I also must point

out that pushing condoms is also nonsense without infusing responsibility.

Condom is not a safety devise or excuse for bad or irresponsible behaviour or

conduct. Availability of condom is not and should not been projected as

responsible and the other as an act of ignorance, denial or hypocracy.

Just the availability and knowledge of the condom does not make you responsible.

There is a vaule in use of condom as well. So there is value in letting people

know and spread the knowledge that learning about and practising " non-sex " (for

a short term strategy) is also a prevention option and good one at that.

You also need knowledge, skills and support for that option to be effective.

There are several positives of teaching restraint other than just harm reduction

which is what condom does.

 

Like one should not be hammering the " values " strategy, similarly one should

also not push condoms to be the one and only option for prevention. Those who

like, choose and can opt for restraint voluntarily should also be encouraged and

supported.

And please stop labeling the non-condom guys, they have a right to believe and

propogate what they think is correct just like you do what you think is correct.

There is sceintific and practical logic and evidence in both the strategies. Our

purpose and objective should be to see if the option or action is non-coersive,

and voluntary and practical.

Thanks

Dr Sanjeev KumarNew Delhi India

email <sanjeevbcc@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

Re: /message/9891

Its indeed interesting to note that people talk on values - good/bad - despite

an apparent troubles experienced in ABC or more  policy.

However, telling people - of course here children - of what to do and not to do

is not a crime if it finds a limit and not exerts any pressure or prescribes

sanctions. But who can draw a limit and who can monitor?

 

Further, children have access and none can intervene or stop them in knowing

condom. Emphasizing on values does discriminate the children and drive to

judgments. Again, one needs to cross a full cycle.  But, always place both and

leave the choices to children. For, in any place, there are sages and sinners

living together allowing the earth rotates.

B Ragupathy

e mail: <ragupathy@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear All

Instead of telling our children to use condoms and thus encourage

sex at a young age, we decided to teach them good values and keep

them away from sex.'' Now that is scary.

Every country is depending on their tradition, culture and values.

In India everyone should be give the respect & follow the Indian

values. It has come from the childhood. Parents, family members and

teachers teach and practice the same with the children for the

personality development.

At the same time sex is purely personal, biological need and no one

preaching can change them and it is not possible to monitoring

always. Our duty is to provide the knowledge on scientific factors

of HIV/AIDS prevention. Condom promotion is one of the important

prevention methods to protect our youngsters. Peer education system

is a one of the best one to protect our youngsters from HIV/AIDS.

All NGOs, SACS and educational institutions have to make the peer

educator system and protect their lives from HIV /AIDS.

Dear team please question it once, India is the country which was

following the Hindu Law. If all the people follow the same concept,

HIV may not spread in India. If we have to protect our youngsters

all the NGOs, SACS and Media have to educate the youngsters on

Condom promotion. It is a tool to protect our youngsters.

With regards

Abraham Mutluri

E-MAIL: <abraham_msw@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear FORUM,

What is wrong in inculcating values into our children's mind? Whether

these values are indian or foriegn it does not matter to me but what

matters is to give a strong footing to children so they don't get

carried away by external influences.

As a mother what should I tell my daughter when she goes for parties.

Well I would like to tell her to be sensibly smart and not cross

limits. I don't know of any mother who would like to tell her daughter

to be smart and carry condoms.

Instilling values can solve many other problems along with HIV/AIDS.

But of course just one workshop to instill these values is not enough

and can not have a long lasting impact. It has to be a continuous

process and needs lot of effort.

But who will make that effort?

Parents neither want to give any time or effort nor do they have the

skill to do it. Teachers are too busy with the syllabus and look to

NGOs for it. NGOs are focused on HIV/AIDS prevention and find `CONDOM

USE' an easy short cut to their problem.

Children are indulging in sex, mostly because of strong Peer pressure.

If all of us make sincere efforts maybe we can make it more

fashionable no to have sex at young age and manage to delay the age of

first sexual experience.

But of course condom use can not be ignored for those who are already

indulging in sex for no matter how hard you try this behaviour is not

changed. So basically the programme has to be tailor made for every

group that is being targeted and depending upon the target group the

weightage can be given to condom use. Value based education can be a

part of each programme.

PS: I would like to know if there is any study done which shows impact

of sex education on sex indulgence.

Priyamvada Chaturvedi

DRISHTIKON (A Viewpoint)

E-MAIL: <drishtikon95@...>

[Guest guest]

Dear FORUM,

Re: /message/9913

As to your question about safer sex and the effect on youth and young

adults I have provided you with several briefly detailed studies.

I can send you over 100 statistics and study results, none of which I

have ever found any evidence that knowledge and discussion and

teaching of safer sex has ever led any child, any teen, anyone to go

out and have sex or not use a condom.

On the contrary young people who have education including safer sex, which

includes a condom, or barrier wait longer to be sexually active and when they do

become sexually active more likely to practice safer sex.

I understand no one wants their child to even be sexually active - protection

or not! But should they be sentenced to a deadly disease, HIV, and perhaps

Hepatitis C as well not to mention all the other std's because parents and other

adults involved with kids don't want to deal with the issue?

Education works. Information works. Knowledge works. These are the

tools we must help chidren to understand that what feels so good can

have such terrible repercussions! We owe it to them to teach them how

to be safe. We have no more time for circlar discussions. Education

which includes condoms saves lives. That is all I care about.

Jeanne Hatfield

Chair

HIV/AIDS Education and Prevention Council

All Volunteer Non - Profit Organization

ravaids@...

406.961.5183

PO Box 938

Victor, Montana

59875

_______________________

Educating Teens About Condom Use and Effectiveness

Protection without Promoting Promiscuity

By Mark Cichocki, R.N., About.com

Created: October 7, 2006

Educating teens about condom use and effectiveness does not promote

sexual activity.

One arguement used against condom education and condom distribution

progrems is that providing condoms and condom education will increase

condom use among teens and those groups targeted with the education

programs. Many feel that condom distribution and education is a

" license to have sex " especially for teens. Studies are surveys about

the subject prove otherwise.

Five U.S. studies of specific sex education programs have demonstrated

that HIV education and sex education that included condom information

either had no effect upon the initiation of intercourse or resulted in

delayed onset of intercourse.

Five studies of specific programs found that HIV/sex education did not

increase frequency of intercourse, and a program that included

development of skills to negotiate safer sexual behaviors actually

resulted in a decrease in the number of youth who initiated sex.

A World Health Organization (WHO) review cited 19 studies of sex

education programs that found no evidence that sex education leads to

earlier or increased sexual activity in young people. In fact, five of

the studies cited by WHO showed that such programs can lead to a delay

or decrease in sexual activity.

In a recent study of youth in Los Angeles, an HIV prevention program

focusing on condom use did not increase sexual activity or the number

of sex partners. But condom use did increase among those who were

already sexually active.

A 1987 study of young U.S. men who were sent a pamphlet discussing

STDs with an offer of free condoms also did not find any increase in

the youths' reported sexual activity.

The data is clear and plentiful. Condom education is effective in

decreasing STDs and HIV and did not give teens " a license to have sex "

as opponents claim.

________________________

Abstract

Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of NSRC

September 2008, Vol. 5, No. 3, Pages 18–27

Posted online on September 15, 2008.

(doi:10.1525/srsp.2008.5.3.18)

********************

The Impact of Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex and STD/HIV Education

Programs on Adolescent Sexual Behavior

B. Kirby

In an effort to reduce unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted

disease (STD) in adolescents, both abstinence and comprehensive sex

and STD/HIV education programs have been proffered. Based on specified

criteria, the author searched for and reviewed 56 studies that

assessed the impact of such curricula (8 that evaluated 9 abstinence

programs and 48 that evaluated comprehensive programs) on adolescents'

sexual behavior. Study results indicated that most abstinence programs

did not delay initiation of sex and only 3 of 9 had any significant

positive effects on any sexual behavior. In contrast, about two thirds

of comprehensive programs showed strong evidence that they positively

affected young people's sexual behavior, including both delaying

initiation of sex and increasing condom and contraceptive use among

important groups of youth. Based on this review, abstinence programs

have little evidence to warrant their widespread replication;

conversely, strong evidence suggests that some comprehensive programs

should be disseminated widely.

http://caliber.ucpress.net

*******************************

Myths & Facts about Sex Education

Accurate, balanced sex education – including information about

contraception and condoms – is a basic human right of youth. Such

education helps young people to reduce their risk of potentially

negative outcomes, such as unwanted pregnancies and sexually

transmitted infections (STIs). Such education can also help youth to

enhance the quality of their relationships and to develop

decision-making skills that will prove invaluable over life. This

basic human right is also a core public health principle that receives

strong endorsement from mainstream medical associations, public health

and educational organizations, and – most important –

parents.[1,2,3,4,5]

Yet, federal policy makers have provided large amounts of funding for

abstinence-only education – programs that ignore youth's basic human

right and the fundamental public health principle of accurate,

balanced sex education. Abstinence-only programs are geared to prevent

teens – and sometimes all unmarried people – from engaging in any

sexual activity. Indeed, the federal government has gone so far as to

specify that these programs must have, as their " exclusive purpose, "

the promotion of abstinence outside of marriage and that they must

not, in any way, advocate contraceptive use or discuss contraceptive

methods, other than to emphasize their failure rates. Since 1998, over

$1.5 billion in state and federal funds has been allocated for these

abstinence-only and abstinence-only-until-marriage (hereafter

collectively referred to as abstinence-only) education programs.

This document explores some of the claims that have been put forward

to support federal funding for abstinence-only education rather than

for comprehensive sex education

The Claim: Research shows that abstinence-only education delays sexual

initiation and reduces teen pregnancy.

The Facts: Abstinence-only education programs are not effective at

delaying the initiation of sexual activity or in reducing teen

pregnancy.

A long-awaited, federally-funded evaluation of four carefully selected

abstinence-only education programs, published in April 2007, showed

that youth enrolled in the programs were no more likely than those not

in the programs to delay sexual initiation, to have fewer sexual

partners, or to abstain entirely from sex.[6]

Numerous state evaluations of federally-funded programs have yielded

similar conclusions. A 2004 review by Advocates for Youth of 11

state-based evaluations found that abstinence-only programs showed

little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and

intentions. Worse, they showed some negative impacts on youth's

willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent

negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. In only

one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in youth's

delaying the initiation of sex. None of the programs showed evidence

of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth

enrolled in the programs. None of the programs showed any evidence of

success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among

participants.[7] More specifically, a 2003 Pennsylvania evaluation

found that the state-sponsored programs were largely ineffective in

delaying sexual onset or promoting skills and attitudes consistent

with sexual abstinence.[7] Arizona and Kansas had similar findings of

no change in behaviors.[7] A 2004 evaluation from Texas found no

significant changes in the percentage of students who pledged not to

have sex until marriage. As in two other studies, the Texas analysis

revealed that the percentage of students who reported having engaged

in sexual intercourse increased for nearly all ages.[7]

Rector of the Heritage Foundation claimed that many studies

showed that abstinence programs were effective in reducing youth's

sexual activity. However, in a 2002 review of the ten studies cited by

Rector, Kirby PhD, a widely recognized, highly reputable

evaluator of sex education programs for youth, concluded that nine

failed to provide credible evidence, consistent with accepted

standards of research, that they delayed the initiation of sex or

reduced the frequency of sex. One study provided some evidence that

the program may have delayed the initiation of sex among youth 15 and

younger but not among those 17 and younger.[8]

The Claim: Abstinence-only programs are responsible for the recent

dramatic decline in teen pregnancy.

The Facts: A new study showed that improved contraceptive use is

responsible for 86 percent of the decline in the U.S. adolescent

pregnancy rate between 1995 and 2002. Dramatic improvements in

contraceptive use, including increases in the use of single methods,

increases in the use of multiple methods, and declines in nonuse are

responsible for improved adolescent pregnancy rates. Only 14 percent

of the change among 15- to 19-year-olds was attributable to a decrease

in the percentage of sexually active young women.[9]

Even though the teen birth rate in 2005 fell to 40.4 births per 1,000

women ages 15 through 19, the lowest rate in 65 years,[10] the United

States continues to have the highest teen birth rate of any of the

world's developed nations. Almost 750,000 teenage women become

pregnant in the United States each year.[11] Nearly three in ten U.S.

teenage women experience pregnancy.[12] The U.S. teen birth rate is

one and a half times higher than that in the United Kingdom and more

than twice as high that in Canada.[13]

The Claim: Virginity pledges (public promises to remain a virgin until

marriage), a common component of abstinence-only programs, delay the

onset of sexual activity and protect teens from STIs.

The Facts: Research suggests that, under certain very limited

conditions, pledging may help some adolescents to delay sexual

intercourse. One study found that the onset of sexual activity was

delayed 18 months among pledgers; however, the study also found that

those young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely than

their non-pledging peers to use contraception when they did become

sexually active.[14,15] In addition, although pledgers were

consistently less likely to be exposed to risk factors across a wide

range of indicators, their rate of sexually transmitted infections

(STIs) did not differ from non-pledgers, possibly because they were

less likely to use condoms at sexual debut. They were also less likely

to seek STI testing and diagnosis.[14,15]

Virginity pledges are particularly problematic for teens that have

been sexually assaulted or sexually abused and for teens who are gay

and lesbian. In addition, many see virginity pledging as a faith-based

message pretending to be a secular, public health message.

The Claim: Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs reflect American values.

The Facts: Objective data confirm that abstinence-until-marriage does

not reflect American values. The median age of sexual initiation among

Americans is 17 and the average age of marriage is 25.8 for women and

27.4 for men. This age difference clearly indicates a long time

between sexual onset and marriage. In a major, nationally

representative survey, 95 percent of adult respondents, ages 18

through 44, reported that they had sex before marriage. Even among

those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81 percent

reported having had premarital sex.[16]

The Claim: Abstinence-only programs provide accurate, unbiased

information about reproductive health.

The Facts: Many of the curricula commonly used in abstinence-only

programs distort information about the effectiveness of

contraceptives, misrepresent the risks of abortion, blur religion and

science, treat gender stereotypes as scientific fact, and contain

basic scientific errors, according to a 2004 report by Government

Reform Committee staff.[17] The report reviewed the 13 most commonly

used curricula and concluded that two of the curricula were accurate

but that 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contained

unproven assertions, subjective conclusions, or outright falsehoods

regarding reproductive health, gender traits, and when life begins.

Among the distortions cited by Waxman's staff: a 43-day-old fetus is a

" thinking person " ; HIV can be spread via sweat and tears; condoms fail

to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in

heterosexual intercourse; women who have an abortion " are more prone

to suicide " ; and as many as 10 percent of women who have abortions

become sterile.[17]

The Claim: Parents want abstinence-only education to be taught in schools.

The Facts: Most Americans want far more than abstinence-only in

schools. Only fifteen percent of American adults believe that schools

should teach abstinence from sexual intercourse and should not provide

information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraception.

Most Americans want a broad sex education curriculum that teaches the

basics—from how babies are made to how to put on a condom and how to

get tested for STIs.

99 percent want youth to get information on other STIs in addition to HIV.

98 percent want youth to be taught about HIV/AIDS.

96 percent want youth to learn the " basics of how babies are made. "

94 percent want youth to learn how to get tested for HIV and other STIs.

93 percent want youth to be taught about " waiting to have sexual

intercourse until married. "

83 percent want youth to know how to put on a condom.

71 percent believe that teens need to know that they can " obtain birth

control pills from family planning clinics without permission from a

parent. " [5,18]

The Claim: *For every $1 spent on abstinence-only programs, the

federal government spends $12 on comprehensive sex ed programs.[19]

The Facts: There is no dedicated federal funding stream for

comprehensive sex ed programs. This faulty analysis pretends that

federal funding for health services for low income women and

adolescents is, instead, funding for comprehensive sex education. It

is not. [20]

Programs – including Medicaid and Title X of the Public Health Service

Act—are not comprehensive sex education programs – or educational

programs at all. Rather, Medicaid is the health insurance program for

the poorest Americans; it pays providers for medical services,

including family planning. Title X supports the delivery of a broad

package of family planning and related health services to low-income

adults and teens through a nationwide network of family planning

clinics. Title X services include not only contraceptive methods, but

also Pap smears, breast exams, screening and treatment for STIs, and

screening for hypertension, diabetes, and anemia.[20]

It is more appropriate to compare what the federal government spends

on abstinence-only education with what it spends on more comprehensive

educational efforts that include both abstinence and contraception.

Only one federally funded effort comes even close to meeting this

description. It is the HIV prevention efforts of the Centers for

Disease Control & Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health

(CDC-DASH). It is unclear how much of the CDC-DASH HIV prevention

budget (approximately $48 million) actually goes to direct education

that includes a discussion of both abstinence and risk-reduction

(condom use, to be precise). But since the HIV prevention budget also

supports a wide range of other activities, including large-scale

surveillance research like the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey, it

is evident that not a great deal goes to comprehensive HIV prevention

education – certainly nowhere near as much as the abstinence-only

funds.

The Claim: Condoms have a high failure rate in preventing unintended pregnancy.

The Facts: When a couple uses condoms consistently and correctly at

every act of vaginal intercourse, a woman's chance of becoming

pregnant within one year is less than three percent. Because some

couples that use condoms use them less than every time and/or use them

incorrectly, the average risk of becoming pregnant within one year is

15 percent By contrast, when couples use no protection, a woman has an

85 percent chance of becoming pregnant within one year.[21]

The Claim: Condoms do not protect against human papillomavirus (HPV).

The Facts: When condoms are used correctly and consistently, they can

help prevent the spread of HPV and can reduce the risk of

HPV-associated diseases, such as cervical cancer and genital warts.

However, since HPV is spread by skin-to-skin contact, infection can

occur in areas that are not covered or protected by a condom.[22] In

2001, a panel of experts convened by the National Institutes of Health

(NIH) concluded that condom use can reduce the risk of HPV-associated

disease.[23] An HPV vaccine that can protect against the two strains

responsible for 70 percent of cervical cancer was approved by the FDA

in 2006 and recommended by the CDC for young women ages 11 through

26.[24] In addition, CDC recommended routine, annual Pap tests for

sexually active young women, in order to achieve early detection of

HPV-associated problems.[24]

The Claim: Condoms are not effective in preventing the transmission of

HIV and other STIs.

The Facts: Condoms are a highly effective public health tool in the

fight against HIV infection. A study of HIV-serodiscordant couples in

Europe (where one person is HIV-infected and his/her partner is not)

found no HIV transmission to the uninfected partner among any of the

124 couples who used a condom at every act of sexual intercourse.

Among those couples that were inconsistent users of condoms, 12

percent of the uninfected partners became infected with HIV.[25] The

2001 report from NIH also confirmed that condoms are very effective in

affording protection against HIV. An NIH review of laboratory studies

showed that condoms afford good protection against discharge diseases,

such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis.23 Since half of all

sexually transmitted infections (estimated at 18.9 million annually)

occur in people under age 25, downplaying condoms' effectiveness is

both illogical and dangerous.[26]

The Claim: Contraception is unreliable and ineffective.

The Facts: When used consistently and correctly, contraception can be

extremely effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies. While a

typical woman who uses no method of contraception has an 85 percent

chance of becoming pregnant in one year, women who regularly use

contraception have a much lower chance of pregnancy. Failure rates for

various contraceptive methods range from .05 percent over a year for

the contraceptive implant (Implanon), to three percent for

Depo-Provera ( " the shot " ), and eight percent for the patch, ring, and

birth control pills, up to 16 percent for the diaphragm, and 29

percent for spermicides used alone (without a condom or other

method).[21]

** The Heritage foundation researchers calculated the ratio by adding

eight separate funding streams, [primarily for health services

together, including Medicaid; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF); Title X Family Planning; Indian Health Service funding; the

Division of Adolescent School Health (DASH) of the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention; the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG); the

Community Coalition Partnership Program for the Prevention of Teen

Pregnancy; and the Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant.

References

American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. Sexuality

Education, Abstinence, and Distribution of Condoms in Schools. [Report

7, I-99]. Chicago, IL: AMA, 1999.

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence. Condom

availability for youth. Pediatrics 1995; 95:281-285.

American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. Policies and

Materials on Adolescent Health. Washington, DC: ACOG,

http://www.acog.org/departments/dept_notice.cfm?recno=7 & bulletin=3316;

accessed 7/3/2007.

Society for Adolescent Medicine. Abstinence-only education policies

and programs: a position paper. Journal of Adolescent Health 2006;

38(1):83-87.

National Public Radio et al. Sex Education in America:

NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser, 2004.

Trenholm C, et al., Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence

Education Programs Final Report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematic Policy

Research; submitted to U.S. Dept. Health & Human Services, Assistant

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 2007.

Hauser D. Five Years of Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage

Education: Assessing the Impact. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth,

2004;

Kirby D. Do Abstinence Only Programs Delay the Initiation of Sex Among

Young People and Reduce Teen Pregnancy? Washington DC: National

Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, 2002.

Santelli J et al. Explaining recent declines in adolescent pregnancy

in the United States: the contribution of abstinence and improved

contraceptive use. American Journal of Public Health 2007; 97: 3.

Hamilton B et al. Births: Preliminary Data for 2005, [National Vital

Statistics Report] Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health

Statistics; December 28, 2006.

Guttmacher Institute. U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics National and

State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity. NY: Author, 2006.

National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Fact Sheet: How Is the 3

in 10 Statistic Calculated? Washington, DC: Author, 2006.

United Nations. Demographic Yearbook. New York: Author, 2004.

Bearman PS, Brückner H. Promising the future: virginity pledges and

the transition to first intercourse. American Journal of Sociology;

2001; 106: 859-912.

Bruckner H, Bearman, PS. After the promise: the STD consequences of

adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health 36 (2005)

271-278.

Finer L. Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954-2003.

Public Health Reports, 2007; 23: 73.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform. The

Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs,

prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman. Washington, DC: The House, 2004.

Hickman-Brown Public Opinion Research. Public Support for Sexuality

Education Reaches Highest Levels. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth,

1999.

Pardue MG, Rector RE, S. Government Spends $12 on Safe Sex and

Contraceptives for Every $1 Spent on Abstinence. [backgrounder #1718]

Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation, 2004.

Daillard C. Abstinence promotion and teen family planning: the

misguided drive for equal funding. Guttmacher Report on Public Policy

2002;5(1):1-3; http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050101.pdf;

accessed 7/3/2007.

Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. In Hatcher RA, et al, editors.

Contraceptive Technology 19th Rev Ed. NY Ardent Media, 2007.

CDC. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2006.

Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 2006; 55 (RR11):1-94;

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5511a1.htm; accessed

4/13/2007.

NIH. Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for

Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention. Rockville, MD: Author,

2001; http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/research/topics/STI/pdf/condomreport.pdf;

accessed 7/3/2007.

Markowitz LE et al. Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine:

recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, Recommendations & Reports; 2007;

56(RR02):1-24.

deVencenzi I et al. A longitudinal study of human immunodefieiciney

virus transmission by heterosexual partners. New England Journal of

Medicine 1994; 331:341-346.

Weinstock H, Berman S, Cates W. Sexually transmitted diseases among

American youth: incidence and prevalence estimates. Perspectives on

Sexual and Reproductive Health 2000; 36: 6–10.

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum members,

Re: /message/9913

I am interested to note the attachment of value to sex in this discussion.

It is presumed that sex is without value and value means abstinence from sex.

Why do n't we think about value in sexual relations. Sex is there from birth to

death whether we like it or not. But we have to rethink about the values

attached to it.

If we educate the children to respect the opposite sex, other things will happen

consequently. Respect means even respecting the sexual desire of the other. In

our culture (with " values " ) sex often happens as coersion from one side, without

respecting the desire of the other.

It is taken for granted that sex is something that happens between male and

female at any time if they come together. All these happens because there is no

open talk about the issue. If people respect the feeling of the other, it is not

easy to have sex without responsibility. If it happens, it will be good,

memorable experience.

Disease prevention is part of it as in any other human interaction.

All people have the right to know it from childhood for responsible respectable

life with " value "

Regards

Dr. Jayasree. A.K

e-mail: <akjayasree@...>