|thanks Dr Bob--I am completely satisfied!
Apr 2, 2006
Hi Dr. Bob. No need to post or send response. I just sent you a question (+woman/-man risks--Please help! I need some sex!) RE: If that doesn't satisfy your info quest, I suggest you "search blah, blah, blah forum" I am actually feeling very satisfied now. I can't thank you enough. Not that I should feel the need to defend myself, (I'll take care of that w/ my shrink next week) BUT I never meant "ridiculously low" w/out a condom. I meant with a condom--it's a given to most straight women of a certain age... (I've been using condoms since I first learned to fuck.) Thank you so much for your quick response.
| Response from Dr. Frascino
Thanks for your thanks! Always nice to hear from another very satisfied reader!
Thanks also for clarifying the "ridiculously low" comment! I'm delighted you learned the proper and safe way to, um, shall we say optimally utilize your home entertainment center?
Thankfully you must not have been bushwhacked by one of Bush's "abstinence-only, never mention the word condom unless it's to point out they don't work" sex education (and I use the term very loosely) programs! For those that have fallen victim to these programs, properly using a condom is far from a "given." The rate of new HIV infections in the U.S. has remained the same (approximately 40,000 per year) for the last 15 years! Half of those new infections are in adolescents and young adults. Clearly our prevention message is not getting through. One promising note in today's news is that the Rhode Island Department of Education today refused the federally sponsored and funded "abstinence-only" sex education program, stating that it is inconsistent with state standards and should not be taught in state public schools. BRAVO to Rhode Island's Department of Education! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVISSIMO! They will lose $400,000 in annual federal funds, but they will also be saving kids' lives and placing common sense and science above rightwing politics. Let's hope other states follow suit and that parents everywhere demand a return to science-based sex education. Now, before the abstinence folks begin writing me more hate mail, I want to point out I'm not advocating abstinence not be taught, but rather that abstinence, as well as condoms and other pertinent safer sex information, be included in the curriculum. In other words, it should not be "abstinence only," but rather "abstinence plus!" I'll repost one of my responses from the archives that addresses this ongoing concern.
Stay safe (I'm sure you will) and be well!
Kids education: Abstinence, fidelity, condoms? Jul 29, 2005
What should we teach our children:
1) Abstinence, Fidelity, condoms
2) Condoms only?
Don't you think 2) promotes risky behaviour? I am lost and I am worrying for my kids. I think nobody is being honest with the message teenagers get.
Response from Dr. Frascino
Personally, I worry more about "abstinence only" than "condoms only" programs. But no doubt the real message should be "abstinence plus!" I've discussed this issue many times in this forum, and rather than reiterate again, I'll repost a question and response from the archives.
Kids just need the truth. It really is just that simple.
+ TEENS HAVING SEX!!! Mar 7, 2005
Dear Dr. Bob,
I just read on the news (we have more or less real news here, no Fox5) that American HIV-positive teens have over the last five years doubled their sexual partners, increased their IV-use by 33% and even have unprotected sex, BECAUSE they think that since their viral load (due to HAART) is low and sometimes undetectable, they are playing it safe now.
What's going on??? Not only do you need real Sex Ed. - classes BEFORE the age of 17 over there, but also Sex. Ed - classes for HIV-positive teens now, who are superinfecting themselves by being utterly stupid and selfish.
Please consider this mail: we now have drugs that work miracles in keeping the disease at bay... don't let some idiots catch mutated strains that could endanger the hope for finding a cure.
AIDS does not discriminate - people do.
Response from Dr.Bob
I'm not exactly sure where "here" is, but consider yourself lucky Fox propaganda hasn't yet started polluting your airways. I absolutely agree the state of sex education in the US is scandalous, very dangerous and getting worse with the current administration's woefully misguided policies. Below, I'll reprint a question I recently posted that addressed some of these problems.
Stay well, L. Stay informed and continue to inform others "here," there and everywhere.
Posted: Feb 21, 2005: procrit dose and Bush's sex education plans
Hey there, What's up Doc?
Say, my doc is starting me on Procrit. What's the best starting dose? My doc said something like 40 or maybe even 400 to start. Is that right? Sounds like a lot to me. Next do you think Bush's push for abstinence only sex education is a good idea? It might stop some HIV infections and after all it can't hurt, right? Maybe we should support it. What do you think?
Dr. Bob's response:
First off, cool name!
Neither 40 nor 400 is a recommended starting dose for Procrit. These may sound like a lot, but in reality are way too low. The correct recommended starting dose is 40,000 units once per week. Maybe when your doc mentioned "40" he was referring to 40 thousand. Next, Bush's abstinence-only sex education program! Not only is it not a good idea, but I feel it can and is causing considerable harm! I'm sure Dubya means well, but "abstinence-only" is a misnomer for what in reality is an assault on sex education in general. There is mounting evidence that abstinence-only programs do not result in more rosy-cheeked virgins, but rather in more pregnancies, abortions, STDs and deaths from HIV/AIDS.
I support abstinence education, not abstinence-only education. Abstinence-only programs are not designed to promote abstinence, but rather to prevent the teaching of effective contraception! Did you know that in order to get federal funds, abstinence-only programs are barred by law from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception, except to describe how they can fail! Shocking, isn't it?
Most other developed nations of the world focus sex education much more on contraception. Consequently, today, while US teenagers have about as much sex as Canadian or European teens, American girls are four times more likely than German girls to become pregnant, five times more likely than French girls to have a baby and seven times more likely than Dutch girls to have an abortion!!! When it comes to HIV, young Americans are five times more likely to contract the virus than young Germans. The teenagers' gonorrhea rate in the US is 70 (yes, seventy!) times higher than in the Netherlands and France! Abstinence-only proponents will claim there are studies that suggest the approach does work; however, a closer look at these studies reveals they are riddled with flaws!
There are now plenty of studies that support "abstinence-plus" sex education programs. These programs encourage abstinence, but also teach contraception. These programs do indeed delay sex and increase the use of contraception.
And so once again Bush's science-proof mind is promoting an agenda that cuts school and health programs while pouring additional tax dollars into abstinence-only initiatives. The result will be more pregnancies, more abortions and more kids with AIDS. Do you still think this is a good idea?
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
- Does HIV Cause Sore On Tongue?
- Is Vaginal Discharge A Symptom Of HIV?
- Purple Spots Could I Have Acute HIV Infection
- Burning Penis After Licking Genital Worried I Have HIV
- Burning Urethra After Touching Dried Semen Worried I Have HIV
- Groin Pain After Unprotected Oral Sex Without Ejaculation Worried I Have HIV
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.