Sexuality and ChildrenFollow

You're a bit of a downer.

Edited, Fri Apr 30 20:40:48 2004 by Reinman

Now that she is gone, I think that link actually proves her statistics. I guess she didn't bother.

Sure. If you take the blanket "Condoms are not 100% effective..." statement. Um... *nothing* is 100% effective.

I suppose technically that abstinance is (with a sidenote that you can get AIDS from methods other then sex, but that's off the topic), but the issue isn't what methods people use, but what methods they are taught about as children/teens.

Abstinance may be 100% effective at preventing STDs and pregnancy, but a very high rate of those taught abstinance only fail to actually use it. It's an all or nothing solution, and we're talking about teens here. In the heat of the moment, they'll have sex whether they were taught not to all their lives or not. And they'll have zero protection against STDs and pregnancy.

Condoms may not be 100% effective, but they are a realistic solution. Teens who are taught about them are vastly more likely to be prepared. While I'm willing to accept that teens taught about proper condom use are probably more likely to actually engage in sex then those taught abstinance only, the rate of increased sexual activity within that group is more then made up for by increased preparedness.

If 1% of sexually active teens who use condoms are at risk, but 100% of sexually active teens taught abstinance only are at risk, it doesn't take a mathmatical genius to see that you'd only need to have 1% of those taught abstinance only be sexually active for those numbers to equal out. I'm willing to bet anything that more then 1% of teens taught abstinance only are sexually active...


We're talking about teens. Hormones flaring and all that. They will have sex if you give them the opportunity. The guys will pretty much ***** anything that lets them. The girls are a bit more picky, but the first guy that says the right things will get into her pants. If you want to prevent teen STDs and pregnancy, you have to teach them about condom use and safe sex. Doing otherwise is doing a horrible disservice to them IMO.

Are we looking at the same link? Everything I see is well over 90%.

Yeah, all the times they don't work, people use them incorrectly. According to the studies. So education would do what....

DING DING DING!!!

Make them more effective.

Among participants who reported always using condoms,the summary estimate of HIV/AIDS incidence from the twelve studies was 0.9 seroconversion per 100
person years.

That's 99.1 percent efective.

What you're citing is this:


From the two incidence estimates,consistent condom use decreased the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%

Which is the rate at which condoms DECREASED the chance of getting AIDS. Not the percentage of effectiveness of the condoms.

See, it's a ratio. If condoms are effective 99 times out of 100 and not wearing condoms is effective 98 times out of 100 wearing condoms wouldn't decrease your risk very much at all.

understand yet idiot?

I realize you hit "find" and 85% and splooged all over yourself saying "Smash is Wrong!!"

But I'm not.

How much more of an *** do you feel realizing that all you needed to do was read a little more effectively and you could have avoided not only being wrong, but being self righetously wrong and getting slaped down like a silly *****?

Learn to fuc[b][/b]king read and be more carefull opening yourself up to humiliation.

Christ, what do they teach kids in school today.

Did you miss the part where I explained it was a ratio. Are your reading comprehention skils really that poor?

Quote me in the study where it mentions that Condoms are 85% effective.

Which word in:

Among participants who reported always using condoms,the summary estimate of HIV/AIDS incidence from the twelve studies was 0.9 seroconversion per 100
person years.

Is it that confuses you, exactly?

Edited, Sat May 1 00:24:02 2004 by Smasharoo

Carefull! Don't hurt yourself backpeadling there.

Kids don't suffer from a lack of education about AIDS, they suffer from apathy. AIDS incidence in teens in increasing because it's no longer seen as certain death and instead is seen as a treatable disease that's not that important. Thta's also largely true. Unless you're living in sub-saharan Africa AIDS is no longer a death sentance. It's still a hugely life changing thing and real pain in the ***, but it's not the spectre it used to be.

Kids know condoms prevent aids, they just don't bother with them.

I know what a ratio is, but what is your ratio between. From what I can see it is between subconversion and 100 person years. Or mathimatcally (subconversion/year).

The ratio we are looking for is:

(Number of times you fu[/b]ck someone with aids and [b]do not contract it)/(Number of of times you fu[b][/b]ck someone with Aids)

Can you not see that these two ratios are different?

If not I will explain further.

I don't know the exact statistics, but AIDs will still kill you. It remains a death sentence - it's just that instead of expecting to succumb to an opportunistic disease within a decade, you get to live a while longer taking drugs for the rest of your life.

You're a happy soul Death did i ever tell you that?

good point well made.

Death 1 , Miur zip.

Yeah. Cambridge is where it is at