SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the my-yoga-teacher-says-vaccines-cause-autism dept.
More than 42 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 59 are infected with genital human papillomavirus [HPV], according to the first survey to look at the prevalence of the virus in the adult population.
The report [pdf], published on Thursday by the National Center for Health Statistics, found that certain high-risk strains of the virus infected 25.1 percent of men and 20.4 percent of women. These strains account for approximately 31,000 cases of cancer each year, other studies have shown.
Two vaccines are effective in preventing sexually transmitted HPV infection, and researchers said the new data lend urgency to the drive to have adolescents vaccinated.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/health/hpv-virus-survey-united-states.html
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Sulla on Monday April 10 2017, @02:15AM (22 children)
I don't know about where you live but in many public schools on the west coast middle schools have a place kids can go to get condoms. I guess that ls all just kids being kids but as the parent I don't like my options being a daughter fucked up by hormone pills or risking a condom breaking. But I guess in this modern world we live in its okay if she gets pregnant or an STD we can flush one and begin treatment on the other.
Be they boys or girls, there is way too much "who cares about consequences" going on in the area of sex. I presume I may be one of the few, but I hold men who sleep around with the same distain as women who do. I can't recall a time in my entire life that my group of close friends has ever talked about sex.
So if people want to be degenerate, go do it somewhere else and be quiet about it. Fuck a new girl/guy everynight? Thats fine just don't talk about it. But stop pushing this shit on my kids, because you wont be the one dealing with the consequences. Unless of course you live in the UK and have only femanized fish in the Thames due to BC runoff
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/male-fish-are-being-feminised-by-river-pollution-1446764.html [independent.co.uk]
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 10 2017, @02:29AM (8 children)
Partner screening with regards to STD and condoms go a long way.
Teenagers will have sex. So you can steer it, but not avoid it. Invite boys that have been screened both for STDs and personality to cockblock the bad boys?
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 10 2017, @02:58AM (4 children)
> Teenagers will have sex. So you can steer it, but not avoid it.
Chastity belts are still a thing:
On February 6, 2004, USA Today reported that at Athens airport in Greece, a woman's steel chastity belt had triggered a security alarm at the metal detector. The woman explained that her husband had forced her to wear the device to prevent an extramarital affair while she was on vacation in Greece.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt#Other_occurrences [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by charon on Monday April 10 2017, @03:00AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @06:37AM
Its probably an S&M thing.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 10 2017, @07:32PM
2004 was a long time ago. We live in modern times now.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 10 2017, @11:34PM
If it saves the husband from HIV etc.. It surely have benefits. Besides from a wife that have a huge backlog of not-for-children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:57AM (2 children)
Kids don't just live up to your expectations. They also live down to your expectations. You're expecting irresponsible reckless behavior, and so you'll surely get it.
Suppose you supply them with bongs and crack pipes and needles, and you give them a list of dealers with "the good stuff" at decent prices. You've indicated an expectation. Does this make it more or less likely that the kids will become druggies?
(Score: 1) by lonehighway on Monday April 10 2017, @05:27PM (1 child)
They will probably do the opposite because if the parents think it's cool, the children will think it's anything but.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 11 2017, @07:27AM
You speak as if you actually have kids... in contrast to your parent post.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 10 2017, @02:51AM (5 children)
> [...] femanized fish in the Thames due to BC runoff [...]
No. From your linked article:
The contraceptive pill is not thought to be responsible for the oestrogens in sewage effluent because women excrete its hormones in a biologically inactive form that has no effect on fish.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 10 2017, @02:39PM (4 children)
because women excrete its hormones
I thought the issue was flushing The Pill, not...the chemicals after they pass through their bodies?
P.S. Why would you flush it anyway? Why not just throw it in the trash?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 10 2017, @03:45PM (3 children)
I don't speak for the other poster, but I understood "flush" to be a euphemism for abortion.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hyperturtle on Monday April 10 2017, @04:59PM (2 children)
I have to believe the problem* is that the liver breaks down the pill for its intended use, and the kidneys excrete whats left after it has circulated through the body and the various reactions have taken place. That is nearly always the expectation for what occurs prior to drug of some kind being found in nature that got there via our disposal habits.
Very, very few drugs we ingest are perfectly consumed by the body. It's one aspect as to why we have to go to the bathroom, and why we don't emit chemically pure and reusable, tasteless and clear water, and condense masses of unsoluable dietary fiber. It does not work like that, but it'd be nice...
Instead, to prevent death and other problems, the body excretes such things as the chemicals we ingest, but many do build up in the body (which are not in scope for this reply...)
Those that get excreted in fact are part of how drug tests work (at least the ones that use urine samples).
Many ingested drugs make their way in a weakened form into the water we drink, via numerous methods, and are readily detectable. In the case of typical work related drug tests, they search for water soluable drugs that are emitted. Some drugs are more fat soluable and work their way out more slowly, and can be detected as well with different thresholds and methods to check for them. Some atomic elements attach to our bones, look up what testing has found for what can replace calcium in children. (those kids have nuclear waste in their body for their lives because of it, with little of it getting excreted once part of the skeletal system)
Back on topic, few women would flush The Pill; that is simply too valuable--there are but a few cultures preserve their urine to take that value judgement a step further--such as the tribes in Siberia and related areas that save urine emitted from after having ingested amanita muscarias. Get enough bottles of urine and you can get some of that birth control back, but yuck.
That tactic would work with many other examples, and our excretions could actually be distilled and fractionated to pull out valuable drugs still in an active form (if not the same exact molecule--changes do occur that are pharmacologically active for many substances ingested)-- but that would not be profitable (nor logistically feasible) to do as opposed to treating it as toxins for clearing via filtration and later disposal of a giant mess of contaminants, and also just simply compared to selling more pills, so instead we flush our wastes away since that's pretty darn convenient for everyone involved.
Just about any time you hear about this sort of problem, it's presumed that we are flushing what we've ingested, not what was in the bottle -- UNLESS it has to do with antibiotics, then that conversation is about people flushing that bottle of unused pills as opposed to natural excretion.
Old pills you may have laying around and don't know what to do with--it is best to either throw them away (and let that landfill get poisoned over time by everyone throwing chemicals out), or burn it -- flushing it is an immediate way to put the strongest type of poison available in pill form right into the environment we live in, the other methods at least diminish the immediate effect if the landfills are lined or the incineration breaks it down to less harmful chemicals that then get emitted out a smoke stack in a far less harmful (or beneficial) form.
**The best way is to try to get what you need and use it as required, but that is not always possible; flushing active medications and paints and industrial chemicals down the toliet is never a viable method even if it is very convenient because it eliminate the chance of kids or pets getting at it. It just leads to the chance of poisoning something else as opposed to something you know. Our water system is fragile and my tax dollars for water treatment shouldn't go into fixing problems caused by ignorance and what was more convenient to someone else.
*I am not an expert
**unfounded heavy-handed and biased opinion regarding ingestion and disposal tactics of stuff
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday April 10 2017, @06:02PM (1 child)
> I have to believe the problem [...]
The article linked by Sulla says that birth control pills aren't causing the changes in fish.
The authors of a scholarly review article concluded "that the risk of exposure to synthetic estrogens in drinking water on human health is negligible."
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es1014482 [acs.org]
http://www.webcitation.org/6pcnSTvDM [webcitation.org]
However, some people believe that contraception is wrong.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hyperturtle on Monday April 17 2017, @10:55PM
I won't argue this as I can't prove it one way or another. However, this is what I had in mind.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160404090836.htm [sciencedaily.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by charon on Monday April 10 2017, @02:58AM
I'm sure if we wait a while, my favorite AC will drop by and tell you if you slap your kids around enough they won't dare have sex for fear of your wrath.
But while we're waiting, I'll point out that human teenagers have been having sex for... oh, round about 200,000 years, and parents haven't figured out how to stop it yet. It's not degeneracy, it's being a living organism. (Oh, those slutty protists [wikipedia.org], always fucking like the wanton strumpets they are). Having them go about it slightly intelligently and with protection from life ruining consequences is the best we can hope for.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @06:27AM (4 children)
So if people want to be degenerate, go do it somewhere else and be quiet about it. Fuck a new girl/guy everynight? Thats fine just don't talk about it. But stop pushing this shit on my kids, because you wont be the one dealing with the consequences.
Awww, would you look at that?
Poor little snowflake is throwing a tantrum because he can't get a safespace.
If contact with the real world is too much for your kids to handle, then you should withdraw them from the world and keep them cloistered instead. But you have no right to put everyone else's kids at greater risk because you can't force your own kids to conform to your ignorant, anti-science puritanism.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by tangomargarine on Monday April 10 2017, @02:37PM (3 children)
your ignorant, anti-science puritanism.
It's logically impossible to get an STD through sexual intercourse if one does not engage in sexual intercourse.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @04:52PM (2 children)
(a) red herring - it is anti-science puritanism to believe that handing out condoms increases the chance of sexually transmitted diseases
(b) false - herpes transmission does not require sexual intercourse [hercampus.com]
(Score: 1, Redundant) by tangomargarine on Monday April 10 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)
(b) false - herpes transmission does not require sexual intercourse
Hey, it's almost like I specifically worded my reply to address that:
It's logically impossible to get an STD through sexual intercourse if one does not engage in sexual intercourse.
Yes, I'm already aware that you can get HIV through blood transfusions or being birthed from an HIV-positive mother. My point still stands -- not having sex is a great way to avoid getting STDs.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 10 2017, @07:32PM
Hey, it's almost like I specifically worded my reply to address that:
So you decided to make a write completely meaningless response that had nothing to do with the post you were responding to.
You are a real credit to this site.
Congratulations on your successful public masturbation!!! And you didn't even catch an STD either.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday April 10 2017, @06:31PM
Ah yes. The old "I justify my embarrassing and disappointing lack of sex by convincing myself that too much sex is a bad thing which makes me feel better about not getting laid. Then I go about preaching like a self-righteous douche bag to further convince myself and others of my convictions."
PS, No one gives a shit what you think.