<p>I reread that lead... and then rewrote it:</p>
<p>Two-thirds of college students who choose to have sex report having only one partner during a college semester.</p>
<p>i do agree garland I was sloppy in my earlier post, because I really meant that I think health care- should be available on campus- to all- at D school there wasn't any extra charge- although I think their diagnosis skills were varied.
But aren't pap smears just for cervical cancers that isn't only connected with sexual activity.
<a href="http://familydoctor.org/138.xml%5B/url%5D">http://familydoctor.org/138.xml</a>
and some who profess not to be sexually active are admittedly * everything* but.
I do think that some of this talk about college students behavior though- reminds me of every generations view that the upcoming generation is "wild".
I also am reminded of when I took my daughter to get tested for HIV at the public health clinic- as it was the only place at the time that was anonymous, and I was concerned that if she was positive, it would cause problems for insurance etc.
Is there some sort of notification or record of those who test positive for Tb for example?
( I had my D tested for HIV when she was 5- because of her transfusions in the hospital when she was born- before the blood was tested- I beleive there are more places to get tested anonymously now)</p>
<p>Ariesthena,
You can get cervical cancer even without having had sexual intercourse. Be careful of the impact of your deliberation.</p>
<p>Of course ,the situation will be changing with the new HPV vaccine.</p>
<p>As for the stats on sex and college students...my basic assumption is that the book is completely re-written since the days I was in college. New scares, new mores, new freedoms. A girl I know (friend of sons) tried to convince me last summer that most kids she knew had had bisexual experience. A conversation I could have missed, in all honesty.</p>
<br>
<p>For those of us who choose to not have sex, would you still recommend it?</p>
<br>
<p>If I were president of a college, I'd let kids opt out of the program, but they'd have to sign an informed consent form in person, etc. Testing would have to be the default.</p>
<p>katlia: >>> Any generation that fails to shock its parents is a failure of a generation. <<<</p>
<p>That is a silly statement to apply to this situation. Engaging in behavior that will lead to fertility problems, unwanted babies, unplanned sterility, and permanent STDs is not behavior that "moves" a generation to better things and a better life; in fact, it does quite the opposite. This generation is not "shocked" as much as it fears that the next generation is committing a kind of suicide.</p>
<p>Hanna, I agree with you in most things, but when testing for private healthcare issues become mandatory, or in-person signing out is mandated, then i have serious privacy and civil liberties qualms.</p>
<p>What would be the point? Will your rerequire new testing each semester; will you issue diseasefree cards to students? </p>
<p>Educate, sure. But I don't see the point of strong-arming testing.</p>
<p>We're talking about private schools. They require, for example, that you purchase their health insurance plan. The schools I attended also required annual checkups. These are communicable infections we're talking about here. I don't view it as strong-arming to tell students, "If you believe you aren't at risk, and you don't want this test, read this and sign here."</p>
<p>It's a pretty moot point, though, as I'm not in charge of anything, and I haven't read of any school requiring STI tests.</p>
<p>The benefit of universal testing is that if everyone is tested then no one is discouraged from being tested because that will "out" her, or force her to acknowledge her own behavior. If there are no significant risks to the testing, I would prefer to see everyone be tested than to see some significant number of people who should be tested avoid it because they are afraid of making a public admission that they are engaged in sexual conduct, or whatever. I suppose that is a restraint on individual liberty, but I don't know why it's more of one than, say, forcing a NASCAR driver to obey speed limits on public highways even though he could certainly ignore them without increasing accident risk.</p>
<p>My kids go to a high school where the kids have received sex education starting in 5th grade and every year thereafter thru 10th grade. It is a very comprehensive program and as a 7th grader my D could tell you everything you'd ever want to know about sex and STDs. I learned a few new things from her. In spite of this very thorough program, I was shocked to learn how irresponsible the kids were when they hit high school and became sexually active. Random sex is common - kids go to a party, get drunk, have a sexual hookup and Monday morning it is all forgotten. These kids have access to condoms, but they are rarely used. It seems only the kids in relatively long-term relationships bother with contraception - probably because they know they are going to have sex on a regular basis. But the kids engaging in the random sex seldom use protection - I think they are in denial. I also believe it is heavily tied to the use of alcohol and their inability to control their behavior when they are drunk. </p>
<p>As a parent, I find this behavior truly frightening - parents need to wise up about what their kids are doing. I think it's true we're going to soon have a generation of infertile women who are suffering from youthful mistakes that their parents should have taken a more active role in preventing. You cannot depend on a school to do this job. I think that is part of the problem - many parents I talk to still do not discuss sex with their kids - they think the school has taken care of it.</p>
<p>I can't help but wonder how all of this casual "hooking" up is going to affect people's feelings towards adultery? Afterall, if having sex is a casual "no big deal" thing, how can a spouse get so upset and stay angry for a long time if his/her spouse has a "hook up" here or there? I mean -- if sex is "no big deal" then why should marital fidelity be??? (I am not advocating marital infidelity, I am just wondering if this casual outlook at unmarried sex is going to have to spill over onto the rules for married sexuality.)</p>
<p>I doubt it jlauer
I lived through the 70s- had multiple partners- for a short but memorable time I was dating 3 men at once- something that I do not regret at all.
I have also been married to my first husband for 25 years( who happened to be one of the three men)
I do not think that "wild" behavior when you are college age- translates into careless behavior 20 years later</p>
<p>emerald....</p>
<p>I think you misread my post...</p>
<p>I wasn't suggesting that the "casual hook ups" mentality at today's colleges will cause people to act wild as adults (altho that is a possibility), I am suggesting that when a spouse cheats, I think it will be harder to feel (and justify being) indignant when one's own past behavior has been screaming that sex is no big deal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...or force her to acknowledge her own behavior.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Shouldn't the student acknowledge her own behavior???? Isn't that the point of health education? </p>
<p>So to spare the feelings of a promiscuous student, all students should be forced to go through invasive & expensive testing?</p>
<p>No, it's not "sparing the feelings of a promiscuous student." It's saving more lives -- more savable lives -- than would otherwise be saved, at comparatively minor inconvenience to everyone (especially since, statistically, almost everyone is at risk at some point). It's recognizing that, as a matter of fact, not every young woman is ready to acknowledge her own behavior, and that that common, predictable type of immaturity has adverse health consequences that can be avoided fairly simply without relying on some fundamental change in human nature.</p>
<p>And, no, I don't think "the point" of health education is to get students to acknowledge their own behavior (although certainly most health education curricula will try to encourage that, at least when they aren't preaching federally mandated abstinence or sending other mixed messages). I think the point of health education is to educate students about health. Like most forms of education, it is not perfect all the time, and does not guarantee that students will get 100% on every test life presents.</p>
<p>The responsible students I know, promiscuous or not, get tested if they feel they should. The idea of forced universal testing is really abhorrent to me, as well as not really the point. The mantra should be "universal precautions" just like with HIV. Forced testing just gives a patina of safety, rather than supporting responsible personal behavior, which should include regular check ups, where, presumably, and privately, a person can get the testing necessary for his/her situation.</p>
<p>JHS: Have you seen today's health books? The entire focus is on examining behavior, acknowledging responsibility, and making good choices. Areas covered include nutrition, common civility & manners, sexuality, emotional balance, and environmental issues. That's what the field of health is. </p>
<p>Do you have a problem with teaching abstinence? It is, after all, the only sure way to avoid STDs and pregnancy.</p>
<p>Garland brings up an important point about the "patena of safety." Health education is all about supporting responsible personal behavior. Great post</p>
<p>I dont have a problem with teaching abstinence- as long as current information is also taught that they can use when they do become sexually active because most will become sexually active as adults- but if they don't get info about health in school, where else are some of them going to get it?</p>
<p>actually abstinence is not enough to avoid diseases that are transmitted by blood or body fluid- like HepB so education about those diseases is still critical</p>
<p>Here's a question for this thread: in your experience, do you feel that people who dated a lot when they were younger made better marriage decisions, made worse decisions, or do you think that the amount of dating and the quality of the marriage decision are unrelated?</p>
<p>Anitaw, thank you for your point & your concern. I do know that there are health risks unrelated to sex, which is why I try to have check-ups... it's just that it is actually not always possible for the doctor to do Pap smears on me. She's tried about four times and has only been able to manage once. </p>
<p>(One of my friends did say that they could give me drugs to help, so that's an option, but apparently, you are so high that you need someone to drive you to the doctor's office.) </p>
<p>Obviously, I would have HUGE issues if a college tried to mandate this of me. The particular method of the test is particularly troublesome; I would not object nearly as much to a blood sample. (Really, what would they do - kick me out of school if the doctor just wrote on my form that she was unable to do the test?)</p>
<p>JLauer - re: post #50. Marriage is the new long-term dating. Hooking up is the new dating. Everything moved down a notch in committment (and, arguably, up at least a notch in sex).</p>