This is off topic, but I'm surprised to see no comment on Ferraro's Friday comments on Obama over here on Feministing.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/ferraro.comments/index.html

I was wondering why this is all about teen girls. Where are they getting the STDs from? I presume, some teen boys!

This strikes me as yet another message for parents to protect and shelter their teen daughters. That girls are so promiscuous these days they all have diseases. What about the boyssssss???? How many of them have STDs???

"I was wondering why this is all about teen girls. Where are they getting the STDs from? I presume, some teen boys!"

I bet some of them were infected by older men instead.

Oh noes! If we report on it, kids will think its OK to have sex!

Wait, the other one. Why haven't any left-wing groups started something along the lines of "reality" camp, where the kids are taught all the stuff that the public (and private) schools find in bad taste? Let the parents who believe in protecting their children from misinformation raise safe children.

Mina - I would assume that some of them would be older men, but wouldn't we want to know that? The fact that this is ONLY girls and doesn't even address boys seems biased to me.

Maybe now we'll all wake up and realize that abstinence only sex ed (i.e. fake sex ed.) doesn't work.

Oh come ON. We all know that boys never, ever get STDs, and these silly girls are either giving it to each other or they did something to offend Gawd so this is their punishment! /snark

This is what abstinence eduction hath wrought. I was reading about this over at Jezebel and they were saying that the rate isn't much lower for the girls who haven't had sex, other wise known as "penis in vagina" because these young people think that oral/anal is perfectly fine as long as there is no penetration in the vagina. This is built out of sheer ignorance and it's only going to get worse if we continue to have abstinence only education in schools. This is why I'm extremely happy to see that more and more states are denying abstinence only education funds. But will this make them reconsider the HPV vaccine? Of course not.

As for the boys, perhaps they'll come out with a later survey but there's nothing to get parents riled up than knowing your daughter's goldmine/rose/diamond/has been tampered with in some way.

I wouldn't call it bias. Chances are the study referenced focused on teenage girls and there simply are no related numbers about young men available from the same source. I'm sure they're elsewhere, though, and I'm sure any forthcoming studies on teenage boys will receive attention just the same because, in the end, every story about teenagers and sex is newsworthy in this country.

Robos A Go Go
Very true, plus there is no FDA-approved test for HPV (the most common STD) in men.

Better point. I didn't know you couldn't test boys for HPV.

"Teens were tested for four infections: human papillomavirus, or HPV, which can cause cervical cancer and affected 18 percent of girls studied; chlamydia, which affected 4 percent; trichomoniasis, 2.5 percent; and herpes simplex virus, 2 percent."

So far HPV is seen as a concern mainly for women so I can see how people are more concerned with girls having STDs if HPV virus is 18% of the 25%. Not saying I agree with the concentration on girls. I wish people would just get over themselves and face reality. HPV is spread by skin-to-skin contact meaning a condom or abstainance doesn't guarantee protection. The vaccine should be available like any other vaccine is available.

Not saying I agree with the concentration on girls.

I don't agree with it either. I'm a guy and I would like to at least have the option of an HPV test. Even though it is usually asymptomatic in males, I wouldn't want to be passing it on to other people.

There's no test for it in men, and I think the incidence of cancer and such is much lower in men as well, so it's less of a concern for them.

Yep, there is no test to detect HPV in men. I also had read somewhere that by the age of 50, 80% of women will have HPV (I don't know if that's only in the USA or globally).

I actually contracted HPV and it's no picnic. I've had a couple of abnormal PAP smears and as a result, I've had two LEEP procedures to remove cells from my cervix. Luckily no cancer. But my GYN did say that if I came back with an abnormal PAP smear and had displaysia (SP?), that I probably would have to have a hysterectomy (I'm 45 so I guess not that unexpected) because there is such a fine line between the rectum and where the cervix is (mine is tilted).

And when is the age that most girls go to their first GYN visit? More than likely not at the age of 14 thru 19 and are they even given PAP smears?

The one thing about the vaccine for HPV, it doesn't cover all strains.

It's also so much fun to tell a prospective sexual partner that I have HPV because they look at you like you told them you had HIV. I explain about it and the fact that there is no test for men and that most likely, they have it and are unknowingly passing it on to their sexual partners but they can't comprehend that fact.

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, since we don't teach teens how to protect themselves from acquiring STDs in school any longer. Once again, we see that A/O doesn't work.

HPV can cause, mouth, throat and tongue cancer in males.

See http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/wireStory?id=4230138

The story was on NBC Nightly News tonight but they really dropped the ball. Send them an note to let them know they missed a big opportunity and forgot to mention that teen boys have STDs too!

The message I sent to nightly@nbc.com:

I thank the show for being willing to run a story about the spread of STDs among young women. However, I have three criticisms.

First, you portrayed the problem as only something women need to be concerned about. Most of the teen women contracted the STDs from young men. Why was there no information on the rate of STDs among young men? Why did you not emphasize the importance for men to get tested in addition to young women?

Second, you did not provide any information on how to prevent the spread of STDs. It was a missed opportunity to mention that condoms, when used properly, prevent a huge majority of STDs. Were you too afraid of conservative outcry?

Third, and finally, it was a missed opportunity to link the rise in STDs to the Bush administration's policy on abstinence-only sex education. Research studies have show it to be ineffective. It is likely a contributor to the rise in STDs. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Schools are not teaching teens how to protect themselves when they do decide to have sex, so now we have the spread of viruses that are preventable and will have long term costs to our health care system for decades to come.

Again, I appreciate your running the story, but you really dropped the ball.

I wonder if the pressure on teen-age girls to not wear condoms is also a factor. I remember that pressure as a teen 10+ years ago, and I'm sure it hasn't gone away.

I wonder also that if teens are having sex and not telling their parents, that they may not be having the appropriate GYN visits they should be having, where they would have further access to BC info (that's where I got most of mine from!)

A virus that causes cervical cancer is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection in teen girls aged 14 to 19, while the highest overall prevalence is among black girls -- nearly half the blacks studied had at least one STD. That rate compared with 20 percent among both whites and Mexican-American teens, the study from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found."

Why is that? Why is there a racial divide? Is that the cover for a geographic or socioeconomic factor (i.e. regarding the number of blacks in "red" states in the Deep South and metropolitan areas of the Midwest)...or is there something wrong with cultural/behavioral norms regarding sex?

I am taking a class on welfare and the criminal justice system with a very liberal teacher who plays devil's advocate occasionally b/c it gets the convo going, but she made a point (as did the Times): as HORRIBLE as I (and she) think the culture of "sexual ignorance/pretend it's not there!" is, some states who accept "abstinence-only" funding may teach the ideologically based bullshit in their classes but give SOME mention to condoms or let parents opt their students out. They do not talk about contraception (and they should) but they point students in that direction.

At what point are individuals (or at least, parents with teens "at risk") supposed to take responsibility for their own behavior?

And as for "access"--I ask this genuinely. Has "access" to condoms, the only form of BC that prevent STI's, changed since the 1990s? Is it that they aren't distributing them at schools and instead teens must rely on PLANNING AHEAD (i.e. driving to the drug store...or not having sex until one/both partners has contraception)?

I guess I'M playing devil's advocate here, b/c again, the powers that be and their views on safe sex (or lack thereof) and family planning put them at the top of my shit list.

But does shitty government policy address all the questions?

I guess it could if you see the missed opportunities to discuss sexual parity, the need to practice safe sex, date rape, etc. etc....

I don't know. How and why do other countries have lower rates of STI's and unplanned pregnancies? Is it b/c they actually promote safe sex early and often (I have talked to many people who have gotten knocked up/some STI b/c they ignored a preliminary high school sex-ed class)?

At what point are community gender/sexual norms or individual irresponsibility to blame, despite government worsening of the problem?

Fuck if only I could find that NY Times article from 2006 or 2007 that discussed just this problem--the notion that even in states with comprehensive sex-ed unplanned pregnancy rates and STI rates were similar to states that practiced all the programs (from the insane, to the hands-off-but-contraception-mentioning)
that fit under "abstinence only".

What happens when you give people info and relative access to contraceptives and they just don't give a shit?

I spoke w/ one of the top 5 HPV researchers on Sunday. You CAN test for HPV in men w/ a simple skin swab. It will be for cutaneous evidence rather than mucosal, but it can (and has been done).

The reasons they focus on girls are all of the above mentioned (that it makes parents crazier, that we overmedicalize girls, that Merck is trying to sell a vaccine) and also that the burden of disease for HPV as well as most so-called STDs (HPV is also contracted non-sexually) is heavier on women. It sucks. But I agree that the main reason they test girls is because women are traditionally held responsible for all of public health.

"There's no test for it in men, and I think the incidence of cancer and such is much lower in men as well, so it's less of a concern for them."

Wasn't rubella considered less of a concern for men too because it's most dangerous for pregnant women? Many boys still get the vaccine for that one...

Mina - you almost got it right. Rubella is not a risk for pregnant women at all. It is only a risk for the fetus. Interesting slight of hand there huh?

In the UK they did not give the vaccine to boys at first because only women were supposedly at risk. But that elides the fact that women are at no greater risk. They are just expected to shoulderthe risk for fetuses (and everyone else). Once the numbers did not go down fast enough, the UK changed their policy to include routine vaccination of boys and girls.

"that Merck is trying to sell a vaccine"

Good point, merm.

I wonder how many parents will go and sign up their young and therefore "vulnerable" teen daughters for Gardasil?

Just wondering.

"Mina - you almost got it right. Rubella is not a risk for pregnant women at all. It is only a risk for the fetus. Interesting slight of hand there huh?"

The fetus is still part of her, and how many pregnant women don't care about birth defects (instead of preferring a healthy baby or an abortion)?

Of course, they care. The fathers probably care too.

The point is that Rubella vaccines do not protect pregnant women from severe illness or death or defect. To say that men are falling on some vaccine grenade to *save* women from Rubella is imprecise and I see it as a problem. Do you not?

Mind you , I'm not accusing Mina. The freakin' CDC makes the very same ellision in their documents about Rubella. Conflating "pregnant women" with fetus in terms of burden of disease is often done and I think it contributes to the problems set out in the original post - paying attention to women's "health" when really they are just letting women's health stand in for public health. It's a two-fer: you get to blame women for their disease and you get them to take steps to protect their (the public) health, when men are rarely asked to do same.

Addressed to Mirm:

Regarding an HPV test for men, I googled it and came up with this website and FAQ sheet for men:

http://www.thehpvtest.com/HPV-for-men-FAQ.html

Apparently there is an HPV test but it's not yet FDA-approved.

When I did earlier research on HPV complications for men, it was stated that there was a very minor chance it could cause penile cancer (among a few other things). HPV is a far riskier disease for women than it is for men.

From the website I posted above:

Is there an HPV test for men?
There is currently no FDA-approved test to detect HPV in men. That is because an effective, reliable way to collect a sample of male genital skin cells, which would allow detection of HPV, has yet to be developed. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises men that they don’t need to be worried about the lack of an HPV test for them. The agency states that "there is no clear health benefit to knowing if men have this virus, since HPV is unlikely to affect their health and cannot be treated. For most men, there would be no need to treat HPV, even if treatment were available, since it usually goes away on its own."

I find this sentence to be most disturbing:

The agency states that "there is no clear health benefit to knowing if men have this virus, since HPV is unlikely to affect their health and cannot be treated.

WTF? So the CDC claims there is no clear health benefit for men knowing if they HPV or not so they don't need to know? So they can just unkowningly pass it along to THEIR sexual partner and if that partner happens to be a woman, then fuck the woman's health, because she's at a much greater risk of having consequences due to HPV.

That really pisses me off.

Women are held responsible for enough on their own already - they take the lion's share of responsibility for birth control, pregnancy, child care - it's about time the males stepped up to the plate.

Just think - if all BOYS got the vaccine without fail, then HPV would be wiped out completely...

1 in 4 girls has also been the victim of sexual assault.

Before anyone tsk-tsks about girls being promiscuous, maybe boys should stop raping the girls.

I spoke w/ one of the top 5 HPV researchers on Sunday. You CAN test for HPV in men w/ a simple skin swab. It will be for cutaneous evidence rather than mucosal, but it can (and has been done).

IIRC, while it is possible to identify HPV in men from a skin scraping, such tests aren't particularly reliable and thus their preventative value is minimal. If you suspect you have HPV, the tests might confirm it, but if you're just going in for a checkup, there's a good chance they'll miss it even if it is there.

And yeah, it can cause cancer in men, but usually only if they already have a weak immune system.

Damn. I didn't realize it was that bad, but I'm not surprised that this statistic is directly proportionate to the rate of sexual assault among the same group. Imagine that.

We men share the responsibility in this, from the teenage boys to those of us that are fathers, especially the vast majority who are complicit in a culture that normalizes sexual assault and doesn't expect men/boys to take responsibility. We should be ashamed of ourselves because we can do better. Besides, girls probably wouldn't be promiscuous if they weren't pressured to be.

If it's any consolation, my wife and I both identify as feminists and are raising our boys differently from the pathetic norm.

I am taking this statistic with a grain of salt. It was done on a sample of 800 girls how can you take a sample of 800 and apply it to over 10 million teens in the U.S.

I hope people don't go cray over this statistic about the new sex crazed teen girls who need more abstinence education instead of comprehensive sex ed.

I'm in Australia, and just saw this article on the news. I have to say I actually threw something at the television.

One, yes, they were only talking about girls. Although I do accept what another poster said, that there may not be statistics for boys, it makes me wonder why we don't have statistics for boys - which again, a poster pointed out (I think) that the main one covered, HPV, is not considered truly relevant to boys (on my news program, it just said 25% and listed the four diseases, not by percentage).

Two, I think problems can possibly be linked to the majority of states having abstinence-only sex education, but I don't think that's the only problem. When I go to the FPA (Family Planning Australia, the clinic where I get my birth control), there are flyers proclaiming there's an epidemic of chlamydia in 14-25 year olds here, and the public schools all teach comprehensive sex education, with information on various types of contraception and their effectiveness rates. I think there's not enough information or campaigns around in the western world at the moment focusing on safe sex and disease prevention for young people, and it's not just an American problem.

Three, I'd just like to say that I've actually had the Gardsasil shots (there's three of them), because my government subsidised them for girls up to the age of 26. I was bulk billed at the doctor's because I only saw the nurse. This is possibly the best thing the Australian government has done for women - young women in particular - over the past few years. And while it only prevents 70% of cervical cancers, 70% sure kicks the ass of 0%, which is what we had before.

"It's a two-fer: you get to blame women for their disease and you get them to take steps to protect their (the public) health, when men are rarely asked to do same."

I should have been clearer - I was thinking of how, in rubella's case, men (well, boys and their parents) were asked to do same.

"Just think - if all BOYS got the vaccine without fail, then HPV would be wiped out completely..."

Yeah. More accurately, if 90something% of the population instead of ~50% got the vaccine, then even the few who don't get the vaccine would usually be protected from the virus, right?

Besides, girls probably wouldn't be promiscuous if they weren't pressured to be.

Where on earth does this article discuss promiscuity? It really chaps my ass that STI = skanky tramp. All it takes is sex with ONE infected person. Just one. And in the case of HPV, it doesn't even have to be penis to vagina intercourse, which, sadly, is all most teenagers define as "sex."

Lots of people get HPV from their mothers during birth. When I first tested positive for HPV, I had never had any symptoms and I had never even kissed anyone at that point in my life. I wish people would stop ignoring this fact.

Lots of people get HPV from their mothers during birth. When I first tested positive for HPV, I had never had any symptoms and I had never even kissed anyone at that point in my life. I wish people would stop ignoring this fact.

i just want to point out one more time that the risk of spreading hpv is not lessened by wearing a condom. it's spread by skin to skin contact, so even if you're practicing "safe sex" you may get infected. most people don't know this, and most people don't know they have it because it doesn't always result in outbreaks or even abnormal pap smears...knowing that, i'm not at all surprised it's so widespread.

Julie - I keep yelling it to the heavens, but the world ignores me. One reason is that the CDC SDI unit owns HPV. Thus, it will continue to be called an STD or STI. Politics trumps science.

I wonder how many parents will go and sign up their young and therefore "vulnerable" teen daughters for Gardasil?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, neocissima, but I hope they do! It would be a excellent thing if they do. So many people are on the fence about getting their daughters vaccinated with Gardasil for dumb reasons, such as, they might actually have to discuss sex and STDs with their daughters! Oh, no, not that! Gardasil is a safe vaccine that has the potential to wipe out cervical cancer. We should support it. I, personally, think it should be mandatory like all the other school-age vaccines.

I've been disappointed in media coverage of this story over the last few days. Why is the focus on girls only? First of all, I haven't heard any clamor about boys. And these girls are not getting "infected" on their own. Secondly, I wonder if these infection rates are due to ignorance about birth control and STDs?

I've been disappointed in media coverage of this story over the last few days. Why is the focus on girls only? First of all, I haven't heard any clamor about boys. And these girls are not getting "infected" on their own. Secondly, I wonder if these infection rates are due to ignorance about birth control and STDs?

I'm used to imprecision in newspaper articles about science, but this is absurd. There are a hundred different varieties of HPV. Not all of them are transmitted by sex; not all of them are related to cancer. Which variety or varieties of HPV do you suppose they talking about?

It absolutely blows my mind to read things like:

Currently, there is no test designed to find HPV in men. But HPV is very common and most men with HPV will never develop health problems from it. Finding out if you have HPV is not as important as finding out if you have the diseases that it can cause.

(CDC, "HPV and men")

It's unimportant for a guy to find out if he is a carrier for a virus that kills 4,000 American women per year? That might kill his wife or girlfriend? If that's not important then what in the world is important?

I'm glad my school doesnt teach abstinance only education. My gym teacher brought this article in and made a point to talk to my class about it even though we were learning about boating safety. She said that we had to stop thinking of ourselves as invincable and that we had to get tested. She said flat out that you can get an STD without penetration and that theres a good chance you wont have any symptoms until you go to have babies and find out youre infertile or when you end up with cervival cancer. She told us that the HPV vaccine helps to protect, but that it only vaccinates girls against a fraction of strands of the virus, and you can still get it even if youve been vaccinated. She just came out and was honest and, even though we were all silent and pretended not to care, we all heard it and thought about it. And I appreciate it because, odd as it seems, some girls dont know these things. Its upsetting. As a teenager, I cant comprehend not being taught about how to stay safe when having sex. Its scary that so many teens dont know this shit, but its not surprising that so many of them have diseases because of it.