Oral sex lessons to cut rates of teenage pregnancy

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1212734,00.html
Oral sex lessons to cut rates of teenage pregnancy

Mark Townsend
Sunday May 9, 2004
The Observer

Encouraging schoolchildren to experiment with oral sex could prove the most effective way of curbing teenage pregnancy rates, a government study has found.

Pupils under 16 who were taught to consider other forms of 'intimacy' such as oral sex were significantly less likely to engage in full intercourse, it was revealed.

Britain's teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in Europe. In 2002 there were 39,286 teen pregnancies recorded. The government has spent more than £60 million to tackle the problem but so far failed to halt the rise.

<snip>

The study by the National Foundation for Educational Research found youngsters were 'less likely to be sexually active' than peers who received traditional forms of sex education, dispelling the fears of family campaigners who believe such methods actually arouse the sexual interest of teenagers.

<snip>

wake me up.

getting pregnant or STDs and ALL of the fun :evilgrin:

Didactic, too. I understand the message, but I think ascribing "justice for all evil in the world" motives to the hijackers is granting them martyr status and implying that those people that perished in the towers deserved to be killed. I don't think Al-Qaida gives a shit about Chile or Nagasaki and I think it's pretty fucked up to ascribe them any motivation that could be construed as noble or just.

also saw it as why we are not so loved (i am not trying to say its justified)

But I think it would be more appropriate if the icon of your choosing was more...well...iconic, like the flag or the eagle, and not the actual site where thousands of innocent people perished in a fiery inferno. Whatever, it's your icon <shrug> I just think it's kind of in poor taste, which for me detracts from your message.

in the atrocious US-sponsored debacles mentioned in the icon. I can in no way, shape or form defend 9-11 but the icon should stay as a reminder of what the U.S. has become and how we should work to fix it.

How many of those debacles were in the name of 'trade'?

99.99% of teens pretty much figure it out on their own...

And if I had chosen to be sexually active as a teen, I would have gone the oral sex way. Doesn't take all that much brainpower to realize you won't get pregnant that way. I doubt anyone would need to tell a teenager that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Defintely offended by the 9-11 cartoon. Of course I'm not telling you to remove it but it does hurt me.

I had to take typing ;P

contracting AIDS? ...seems like a strange way to go about things...:shrug:

like gonorrhea,

"... syphilis, chancroid, herpes, hepatitis B, cytomegalovirus, human papilloma virus (HPV), herpes, and, rarely, HIV and chlamydia."

http://www.teenwire.com/index.asp?taStrona=http://www.teenwire.com/ask/articles/as_20000906p075.asp

to pass the HPV virus through the mouth. HPV and everything else you list are much more transmittable through intercourse. If the study shows that increase in oral sex statistically corresponds with decrease in intercourse, why would you say that this strategy would lead to an INCREASE in those STDs?

get STD from making out.

Theoretically possible, but not likely . . .

My point is that oral sex is not safe unless performed with a condom. And how often does that happen?

These STDs are all transferable through oral sex; and if you're the one person in 10,000 who DOES contract HIV or HPV that way, the stats don't mean squat. And the vast majority of kids do NOT know that.

but reducing the sense that a teenager has of risk seems an up-hill battle. Teens generally feel that the odds are in their favor (and that's one of the reasons the military wants 19 year olds).

Many of the late teens & early 20-year olds I encountered in teaching general biology felt the same way...even students in my human sexuality/reproduction course became defensive at my explaining the range of behaviors involved in STD transmission.

My conclusion was that the "street" had ordained oral sex (outercourse) as safe. As a result of that, many felt I had nothing to offer of which they were interested.

The probability of contracting HIV through oral sex is miniscule compared to the probability of contracting HIV through intercourse, so if the number of people having intercourse decreases proportionally to the increase of people having oral sex, the risk of contracting HIV would decrease in that group.

could open the way to transmission of HIV, STDs from those who have the viruses.
A miniscule chance is one chance too many.

the argument here in this particular article that is being discussed, isn't abstinence vs. sex. It's whether educating about oral sex decreases the number of teens having intercourse. I could go on about how statistically, at least in the US abstinence education does not seem to work, which is perhaps why the Brits did this study, but that's beside the point. The point it, whether oral sex education would decrease the risk of HIV and other STD transmission compared to what is already happenning and has been assessed in terms of percentages and numbers. The answer is, it probably would.

home school their kids...forgive me, am being facetious, although am still thinking that teaching about safe sex, how to use condoms, and abstinence would be better way to go. Seems teaching oral sex would open up a whole 'nother can o'worms and ensuing social problems.

"Eating is not cheating."

Teaching safer sex AND abstinence as an option is great; I thought you were advocating just teaching abstinence, which basically does not work.

Although it is always best to use a condom with oral sex, the probability of contracting HIV this way is very small. HIV does not live in saliva. It takes a large amount of saliva to carry a significant portion of HIV, anyway (about 8 ozs). There are no well documented cases of HIV contraction from oral sex (if someone knows some recent ones, please fill me in).

The danger is most present for the "giver" not the "receiver". It is theoretically possible that if the giver has an open sore in his or her mouth, and the ejaculate or vaginal fluid comes in direct contact with that open sore without mixing with too much saliva, then HIV infection could occur.

On the other side of the equation, it is almost impossible for the receiver to get HIV from the giver unless there are open sores on the penis or vagina and an open sore in the mouth of the giver. The blood to blood mix must be pretty uncontaminated with saliva for this to happen.

But there are dangers other than HIV - herpes to name one.

There are some good condoms out there that are flavored. I hear the banana tastes awful, but strawberry is pretty good.

I have an old link here discussing HIV and saliva, I'll look for some newer ones.

http://www.docguide.com/dg.nsf/PrintPrint/CAB9B3B6BB8034E985256714004F678F

(no, you don't want to know why I was reading a gay prostitute guide)

...that it's safer to swallow rather than spit because stomach acids wold chew up any STD's as opposed to having them pass the gums and other sensitive tissues twice.

Interesting.

ZERO chance of getting pregnant or stds and ALL the fun :evilgrin:

I can just hear them!

The fundies were upset the last time.

lol

have to be TAUGHT how to do it!

clitoris is/does/where and unlike y'all masturbation is some what stigmatized for women

Stimatized yes...needing to be taught, NO!

Not only that, but sex doesn't cause disease--having sex WITH AN INFECTED PARTNER leads to disease transmission. When two people have a monogamous relationship and they aren't infected to begin with, their chances of getting an STD are virtually nil.

However, I'm not buying the premise of this article--I can't believe that going down on a regular basis isn't going to lead to intercourse . . .

Teaching any sexual techniques would curb teen sex, if not all sex. :(

I don't want to stereotype educators. However, I certainly can foresee the trauma of getting sex tips from the relatively elderly.

Is a sexual education program developed by the UUA and delivered at many UU churches. It teaches young people about the role sexuality plays in relationships and covers a broad range of human sexuality. The program stresses relationships (including LGBT) as well as the love-making in a very open and up front manner. Abstinece is recommended until the young person feels mature enough to handle the importance of sex and being open and secure in the decisions they make. If they deceide that they are going to have sex I feel my child will have the knowledge and emotional maturity to make sure it is in a loving relationship. Not a blow-job fest in a locker-room. (as happened in a town near where I live)

Teaching simple alternatives to intercourse does not respect the depth of human sexuality or our young people. Nor does it educate them in how to properly celebrate a relationship with mutual respect and love.

They can wait until they are in college for the casual sex mixed with drugs and alcohol...

lol

I grew up very confused about where sex fit in life. My mother was very Catholic. She told me that masturbation was a sign of/caused mental illness; that men were unable to control their sexual impulses so it was totally the woman's responsibility to prevent the "occassion of sin" in a man; a husband could never respect (or forgive) a wife who wasn't a virgin on their wedding night; and that it was a mortal sin to deny sex to your husband. Of course birth control was forbidden so I observed her being pregnant half of her life or dreading the possibility that she was. At the same time I was growing up in a culture that used sex to sell everything from cars to a loaf of bread. A woman was only valued for her looks, ect. And then, of course, was the whole natural thing going on in my body with my own needs and desires.

This is sounding too much like a therapy sesson, but you get the picture.

My point is that it was extremely important to me that my children have the gift of a healthy attitude about sex. I wasn't sure what that meant, but what you describe sounds very much like what I came up with.

We briefly discussed oral sex, and I had to do everything but fall out laughing at their reactions.

It was priceless.

I would love to hear about it.

When my daughter had a class on sex ed in 6th grade, her complaint was: "We didn't have to learn about the BOYS -- Ewww!"

They are such a delight to be with. It took them a while to warm up to the class, but once they did, they started talking and asking questions. I was amazed at the amount of bad information that is out there about pregnancy, their bodies, sex, HIV...

One of the girls asked something about HIV and how it was passed on, and we started discussing the ins and outs of HIV. The topic of oral sex came up, and each one of them had the most horrified look on their face, like, "Why on earth would anyone want to do that?" We stayed very stoic and continued the discussion, but it was an interesting day to say the least.

It is so important to teach kids about sex and sexuality at an early age if for no other reason than to combat the misinformation they are already getting at school. The most important thing we want to get across is that it is their body, and no one has a right to force them to do anything.

Speaking of teen sexuality, are you all familiar with that new Avril song, addressed by a female "Lyric I" to a generalized male figure about how she's not gonna have sex with him? I know it shouldn't, but it pisses me off. First of all, there's the obvious objection that Rock N' Roll is supposed to be about HAVING sex, not NOT having sex. However, if you were to point out that maybe I only think that because I'm male, that would be a totally valid point.
But to continue. While, obviously, no young person of either gender should feel like they have to have sex before they're ready, the way this particular song constructs the problem bothers me. For one thing, sex is always referred to as "It," and attached to the verb "give," as in "give it up," "give it away," etc. This phraseology confirms the ridiculous notion that when (hetero) sex occurs, the woman is "losing" something, which the man is presumably "gaining" or "acquiring." Even if the song ostensibly defends a woman/girl's right to say No (a good thing), it's still confirming a pre-feminist concept of the motivation for doing so. The song also draws repeated contrast between the speaker and "other" girls who are "like that," reinforcing the "good girl/bad girl" thing. Lastly, it is not the male, but the female speaker, who introduces violence into the song, threatening to "kick (the) ass" of the male if he makes physical contact of any sort, even though, from what I can glean, the two figures are boyfriend/girlfriend at the beginning of the song.
While I identify myself as a feminist, I have a big problem with the high school/college armchair-feminist oversimplistic notion of sexuality, i.e. that if a boy wants to have sex with you, it means he doesn't really like you (huh?), when obviously, healthy relationships involve both. Of course, there are duplicitious guys that girls should watch out for, especially at that age, but I think messages that turn gender identity into a football match with intercourse as the ball do more harm than good, whether it's frat guys constructing the metaphor or alleged feminists. Thoughts?

i.e. that if a boy wants to have sex with you, it means he doesn't really like you (huh?), when obviously, healthy relationships involve both.

Yeah, and healthy relationships also involve patience. If a guy is too forceful, then a girl may feel as though she is simply being objectified rather than loved.

Of course, smart (asshole) guys can get around it by proposing a more intimiate relationship and letting the girl stew in her own juices for a day or two until she finally gives in to her natural desires. Most guys are stupid though.

Just my opinion, of course. :)

Her songs = fingernails on the chalkboard.

Yeah, I also agree that the whole notion of guys wanting to have sex with you being bad is pretty screwed up. Sometimes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a fling. It's when girls confuse that with a guy actually caring about them...that becomes a problem. Too many girls do that, but it's so easy to tell.

I have no problem with that, but could you imagine that coming from this country? Never in a million years.

Man, those Brits aren't as uptight as they once seemed, eh? :) Just kidding. I lived there, and they never were.

When *I* was in school?

instead of just telling kids to say no, and educating them about sex... give them an alternative use for their energy and teach them about priorities and dicrimination.

:thumbsup:

:bounce:

Head Start!