Assuming that we’re sexually active, 80% of us will be infected with one or more strain of human papillomavirus (HPV) at some point in our lives. HPV does not have negative health impacts for men; but 10 of the 30 detectable genital HPV strains (there are dozens of undetectable strains) can, in rare cases, lead to cervical cancer in women. Regular visits to the gynecologist and pap smears are the best defense against HPV’s cancer risk, and Merck is now offering a vaccine.
HIV/AIDS affects an estimated 1,000,000 Americans. It is a horrible disease which impacts all corners of society to greater or lesser degrees. Living with HIV/AIDS is trying, and expensive, and emotionally devastating; but given the current state of pharmacology, living with HIV/AIDS is possible. In the United States, HIV/AIDS is no longer the death sentence it once was. Nonetheless, smart sex practices, open and frank discussion with sexual partners, and regular testing are essential to keeping HIV/AIDS rates – and the social costs of this terrible disease – low.
One fifth of sexually active people over the age of 12 have been infected with genital herpes. Genital herpes is characterized by persistent painful sores and, if the Valtrex commercials are to be believed, an irrepressible urge to kayak, mountain bike, and make eye contact with television cameras. Herpes is unpleasant, and may have a role in increased HIV-transmission likelihood, but it is not life-ending. Frank and open discussion with sexual partners is the best defense against herpes, and current pharmacology can greatly suppress the symptoms disease if you get infected.
It is estimated that almost 3 million Americans are infected with Chlamydia. Untreated, Chlamydia can cause serious reproductive damage. However, the disease can be cured with a single round of antibiotics. Frequent testing is the best way to avoid transmission of Chlamydia, and its destructive reproductive impact.
About 700,000 new cases of gonorrhea crop up in the US each year. If untreated gonorrhea can give rise to Pelvic Inflammatory Disease in women, and infertility in men. However, gonorrhea is treated with a single round of antibiotics. Frequent testing is, once again, the best defense against the disease’s negative health consequences.
Notice any trends developing? STD’s are surprisingly common; in fact, it shouldn’t be surprising, they are simply “common.” They impact all segments of society – black, white, Hispanic, straight, gay, rich, poor, Yankees fans, Red Sox fans, people that have seen Rent 50 times, people that used to sell burritos at Phish shows in order to pay for their tickets – in huge numbers, and, yet, the world has not come to its fiery, cataclysmic end.
And – while there’s huge disparities, disease-to-disease, in the health and lifestyle impacts – STD’s are something that, at least in America, we can live with. And we do live with them. Especially if we’re engaging in frank and open discussions with our partners, and frequent testing.
But we, as a society, are not forthcoming and candid about STDs. We do not speak of these diseases as public health issues so much as we talk about them as sociological, esteem, or moral issues. We stigmatize these diseases, we sneer at or pity their carriers; we believe the diseases to be symptomatic of moral failure.
But the reality is that STDs aren’t moral failings – they’re merely diseases, and common diseases at that. And most of them are readily treatable, even curable, provided that they are caught early enough. And early detection happens when individuals are well-informed and openly communicative about STDs with ourselves and our partners.
Given the prevalence of STDs, and our national obsession with sex, why aren’t we comfortable talking about STDs with our partners? If being honest and open about STDs is the best thing we can do to reduce transmission rates and health impacts, why do we talk around these issues, or lie?
Our cultural understanding of STDs is, arguably, based on what we’ve been told as children. We’re not told that STDs are a result of unsafe sexual practices so much as that they are results of pre-marital sex, or promiscuity. We’re told, however tacitly, that we’ll be judged if we contract a STD; we’re told that these diseases are rare, and shameful, and disgusting; it’s a persons fault, we’re told, if they are unfortunate enough to be infected.
We’re not told that Chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis are easily and inexpensively cured, as long as they’re caught early enough. We’re not told that herpes doesn’t ruin your life, that there are drugs to mitigate its effects, that you can still enjoy kayaking, hiking, wine country, the charms of your beautiful girlfriend and her passion for mountain biking, etc. We’re not told that HIV/AIDS is no longer the death sentence that it once was. And we’re certainly not told that nearly everybody has, or will have, an STD at some point in their life.
The realities of STDs do not match up with the fear surrounding them, and we need to enact public health and sexual education policies which rectify this. Our fear of STDs is not rooted in the scientific and public health realities of the issues, but rather in a covert and insidious moralism. The powers-that-be realized long ago that telling us all that we’ll go to hell for sex out of wedlock no longer worked, and so they chose a new strategy.
We should teach our children that sex (even *gasp* pre-marital sex) is commonplace, and natural, and not shameful. We should move away from idiotic policies like “abstinence only” sexual education, and teach our children how to have sex responsibly and safely. High schools, colleges and corporations should host free sexual health clinics and provide free, regular STD testing. High school sexual education classes should teach students how to speak to their partners about STDs without feeling embarrassed, and how to deal medically with infection, should it happen.
We’ll never eradicate STDs, but we can approach them in a mature and constructive way – but only if we learn how to talk about them.



Comments
That's a lot of talk about sex. While I don't want to diminish the seriousness of STDs (or as they're now popularly called, "STIs"), we should recognize that the infection rates are basically unknowable. Saying 80% will infected by HPV has about the same analytic credibility as saying that every breath you take has been inhaled by Einstein, at one point or another.
Saying that STD rates are unknowable is like saying that the average daily cigarette consumption of someone who hides their habit from their friends and family is unknowable... It has the same intellectual credibility as saying that a completely irrelevant quip is somehow analogous to the point being pressed.
Alright, may have spoken too soon on gonorrhea...
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyid=2007-04-12T211053Z_01_N12341058_RTRUKOC_0_US-GONORRHEA-USA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
You beat me to the punch on the article about gonorrhea, but I think it highlights an important point: people's current sexual behaviors expose them to a number of diseases that range from the annoying to the life altering and/or ending. The latest news regarding gonorrhea should once again raise fears of the unknown. Can we always rely on medicine to erase our mistakes?* I think Matt’s point about open and frank discussions is important. It’s unfortunate that it was delivered only to the choir. Anyone who disagrees with his position certainly won’t be motivated through comments like “insidious moralism” or by the mocking tone in which people who teach abstinence are often treated. After all, abstinence is something that we should be teaching our 12 year old children, isn’t it? But it is clearly not the only thing we should be teaching.
One other major and unexplained assumption throughout the entry is that it is the government’s responsibility to talk to kids about sex. This is an issue that I struggle with deeply. As a future community leader, I recognize the power of the state’s ability to disseminate information and its responsibility to educate our children. However, as the son of a Methodist minister, I understand and respect the role of sexuality in all faith traditions. This is more than “the powers that be” and it is certainly not “covert.” Sexuality, at least in the Christian tradition (I can’t speak intelligently about the others), is the purest expression of love and is responsible for the creation of life. If this is not a moral, religious, and family issue, then nothing is. I respect and understand Matt’s position and would, under most circumstances, join with him in advocating for more open and frank discussions. Those conversations cannot and should not start with the trivialization of the moral aspects of human sexuality.
* This begs the question: Whose mistake? the newly infected? he carrier? the parents? the government? I think that we all share blame when information is withheld and infections are 100% preventable.
Hey, speak for yourself, I’m not at all to blame. I spent 5 of my 6 years in the working world teaching adolescents how to protect themselves against STIs and unwanted pregnancies. I’ve traveled to all ends of the earth (or, all ends of Western Europe) to understand why, despite poorer health outcomes, we continue to approach teen sexual health issues in this country the way we do. Our teens have higher rates of Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, HPV, HIV and abortion…abstinence-only is a flop.
Check out:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/abstinenceonly.htm and (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsest.pdf
I can understand Nathan’s point about this not necessarily being the responsibility of the state, but if the federal government is going to make it their business and pour hundreds of millions of dollars into abstinence-only education, I think it’s only reasonably that we demand a switch to comprehensive sexuality education, if for no other reason, for the sake of medical accuracy. This is to say nothing of the “until marriage” component, which is problematic for many reasons, but particularly dismissive of young people who know that they cannot legally marry...I mean, we are fundamentally telling them that they should just never be sexually active.
This is what the government is paying for: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/abonlydefinition.htm
A little note about comprehensive sexuality education: Comprehensive sexuality education is just that, COMPREHENSIVE, and includes a huge shout out to abstinence. And, it even addresses communication with parents and the importance of family values (not a registered trademark of the right). And, here’s the real story, young people actually delay initiation of sexual activity longer when they get the full picture. They’re freaking smart. You give them that abstinence-only crap, they will tune you out and listen to their friend who knows all about sex and heard that if you drink Mountain Dew after sex, you won’t get pregnant (I am not kidding, this was a real issue we had to address in the classroom.) And, if they don’t wait, they probably wouldn’t have anyway, and they are much more likely to protect themselves. Okay, that is my sermon to the choir.
If you are wondering, Advocates for Youth is my favorite non-profit!
Matt - I agree with you that STIs are not treated the way that they should in public discourse. However, don't you think that embarrassment has something to do with it? Even though many of these diseases are quite common (as you point out), it seems to me that if somebody contracts one of them, they may not really be ready to appear before an audience of junior high school kids to explain how you forgot to practice safe sex. And even if you did wear a condom, the negative stigma may be enough for you to just keep it to yourself.
Also, I don't agree that because pre-marital sex is commonplace and natural, it is acceptable. Of course, my conception of what sex is and what it means is admittedly different than yours.