I hear that all the time. But more and more, there's evidence that "using protection" is what's not working.
Take for example a clinical study in Atlanta, Georgia reported in the Jan. '09 edition of Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. Girls who had sex in the previous 14 days, while using condoms 100% of the time, were tested for the presence of sperm in their vaginal fluid.
The clinic saw 1,585 girls between March 1 and August 31, 2004. Of those 1,585 fifteen-to-twenty-one year olds, 847 (53%) reported they were sexually active.
The swab was then tested for the presence of sperm.
Read this very s-l-o-w-l-y.
Of the 186 who claimed they had used condoms consistently, 34% (63 of the girls) had evidence of sperm in their vaginal fluid.
The authors of the study didn’t try to explain out why these girls had sperm in their vaginal samples
[Note: Twenty-seven could be an exaggeration. I heard a medical professional use this illustration at a conference on sexually transmitted infections... still it's not "just like putting on a sock" as the ads say]
Please think this through very thoughtfully. You start with 715 sexually active girls. Only 26%, or 186 girls, said they were using condoms consistently. That means the other 529 girls were NOT using condoms consistently.
Doesn't anyone understand condoms are pass or fail?
If your son or daughter had sex with their sweetheart twice in one weekend, but they only used condoms ONE time, they're not 50% at risk of getting pregnant or infected, they're 100% at risk!
And even if they did use condoms, 34% of those girls STILL had sperm in their vaginas after 2 weeks! So if she used a condom on Saturday, but ovulated on Monday, she might still get pregnant!
It is highly unlikely that 100% of sexually teens will ever use condoms 100% correctly 100% of the time. To truly eliminate the risk of pregnancy/infection that is what is necessary. But nothing ever shakes the confidence the anti-abstinence crowd has in the Almighty Condom.
Every few days or weeks there's another news item about how abstinence is "unrealistic" (thank you Bristol Palin.) But if most teens don't use condoms correctly and if sperm is still present up to 14 days later, am I'm the only one who gets that relying on condoms to prevent teen pregnancy is even MORE unrealistic than sexual self-control?
It's also worth pointing out that sperm is not nearly as hardy as many sexually transmitted viruses. So if sperm can still be around after 14 days, you have to wonder, what else might be swimming around?
- Think about the teens you love.
- Think about the results you have seen when they say they have "cleaned" their room.
- Think about the SAME STANDARD being applied to condom use.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
2 comments:
"in my world we call that lying"
Here's what we call lying in my world:
1. It doesn't say whether or not the "other 529 girls" were using other forms of contraceptives, yet that is what you claim. The study was specifically about condom use so if all of those other girls were using the pill etc., they would be irrelevant to the study.
2. I've googled my heart out and the most steps I can come up with to properly use a condom is 9 . . and several of those don't even qualify as steps in "using" (e.g. - go to the store and buy one).
3. "If your son or daughter had sex with their sweetheart twice in one weekend, but they only used condoms ONE time, they're not 50% at risk of getting pregnant, they're100% at risk!" Really!? So are you saying that suddenly women of the Earth are ovulating 100% of the time? Because isn't that the only way they could be 100% at risk in ANY scenario?
4. "The authors of the study didn’t try to explain out why these girls had sperm in their vaginal samples, but they suggested possible reasons could be: misreporting condom use because its more socially acceptable . . " Well and they wouldn't would they? That was not the purpose of the study was it? And yes they were lying . . again, that was part of the purpose of the study as it was stated.
Honestly, if you want to preach abstinence only, why can't you (and your kind) do it in an honest and forthright manner? Your misuse of statistics and studies is rampant. But you know that don't you? As Mark Twain once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
And by the way, doesn't operating a website constitute "doing business?" And doesn't a corporation that has been suspended lose it's right to "do business?" Because here's the defintion from the Califonia Secretary of State's website for the Status your corporation currently holds: "Suspended: The California corporation has lost all rights and powers for failure to meet statutory filing requirements of either the Secretary of State's office or the Franchise Tax Board.
Tsk tsk . . dare to post this moderator . .
Thank you for weighing in, Scott. I'm glad for a chance to address your points.
1. The study was specifically designed to see whether or not sperm would still be present 2 weeks after condom use. It was. The point of the study was not effectiveness of the pill, etc. but whether or not condoms are effective. However, MY point in offering the study for review was that STDs are much more easily transmissible than sperm, so if sperm is present, there is reason to believe bacteria & viruses could also be. The pill etc. do not protect against STDs, so anyone relying on BC should also be using condoms.
2. I should say I don't know the 27 steps either, but that's what I was told during a detailed clinical presentation. Even 9 seems like a lot to me... but I accept the rebuke.
3. This seems obvious to me, but perhaps it is an unclear reference to the "pass or fail" nature of condom use. If she isn't ovulating, then it wouldn't matter at all if uses a condom to avoid getting pregnant.
4. The take-away from this is: if the epidemic of stds is to be controlled then 100% condom use is absolutely necessary. That the girls "lied about" or "thought they had" used condoms 100% of the time is a whole other issue. Important, but another issue.
While I agree that some abstinence educators have used or misused statistics in the past, I don't believe you can paint me or Positively Waiting with that brush. We don't need to exaggerate the stats, they are scary enough as they are.
And, finally, our status with the state is only pending receipt of this years filing fee... but thank you for your concern.
Post a Comment