This story was originally published on Advocates for Youth’s Birds and Bees Blog
In a blog on Psychology Today’s website, Kathryn Stamoulis, a psychologist who specializes in adolescent sexuality and teens’ internet behaviors, suggests that it’s time we take the stigma out of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and start talking about them as a normal risk of a normal behavior. Her argument is quite logical: STDs are extremely prevalent in our society among both teens and adults, treating them like the ultimate social taboo does nothing to prevent teens from contracting them (years of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and fear-based education have not reduced teen sex or the transmission of STDs), and what it may actually do is prevent teens from taking important steps to protect and treat themselves (like seeking out regular STD screening).
She suggests that STDs are a normal risk of sexual contact similar to how contracting a cold or a flu is a natural risk of being in close contact with others during the winter. “Just imagine what life would look like if people viewed STDs as a normal part of fooling around,“ she writes. “Without fear of tarnishing his reputation, a teenage boy could tell his partner ‘you may not want to get too close to me this week; I’m clearing up a case of Chlamydia.’ Or a teen girl may view getting tested twice a year as routine as she does a teeth cleaning.“
She is absolutely right that stigma prevents many people from seeking the protective behaviors they need—be it buying condoms before having sex or getting tested for STDs afterwards. We do have to change our tone when talking about STDs to get rid of the shame and blame. STDs are a health issue; not a sign of poor morals or bad behavior.
But normal, is that taking it too far?
As a sexuality educator, I have spent a lot of time criticizing abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for their use of fear and shame especially when it comes to STDs. A common tactic of these programs is to show young people slides of STDs in their extremely advanced stages; cervixes that are dripping with pus or penises covered with cauliflower-sized warts. I do not think these are appropriate teaching tools for a number of reasons. First, they’re not particularly educational—these pictures represent late stages of STDs that in all honesty few people ever reach. If we do want to show young people pictures of STDs, at the very least we should be showing them those in the earliest stages in order to help them understand when to seek testing and treatment.
Second, the narration accompanying these slides often says things like “As a result of this Chlamydia infection, this young woman, even though she only had sex with one person, will never be able to have children.“ Not only do such statements gloss over important information—like the fact that Chlamydia is easily cured with antibiotics if caught early and that even if caught later infertility can be averted—they also seem to suggest that the owner of the cervix in the picture is to blame for her predicament and, worse, is now damaged goods. Such message of fear and shame are always inappropriate.
Lastly, I think it is worth noting that those who support showing pictures of diseased genitals are the very same forces who try to censor any curriculum or book that shows pictures of naked people or healthy genitalia on the grounds that they are pornographic and not age-appropriate. This just further underscores the messages that sex, and even our bodies, are sources of shame.
As a mother who wants to protect her children from anything that causes pain or discomfort, though, I have to admit that calling STDs simply a normal part of fooling around makes me a little anxious. It is true that gonorrhea and Chlamydia can be treated easily, but other STDs, like Herpes, can cause recurring pain. And, we can’t forget about HIV which causes numerous medical issue and ultimately still leads to death.
I vividly remember an article I read when I was 14 about a 25-year-old woman who had a severe case of genital Herpes. She explained that urinating during an outbreak was so uncomfortable that she would not do it at work and would instead wait until the end of the day when she could do it as part of a shower or a bath to limit the pain. I don’t know whether the article was designed to scare me or simply to inform me but it sounded horrible enough that I vowed I would not get Herpes. To this day, I believe that some of my vigilance in protecting myself when I became sexually active came from that dread.
This is always one of the challenges of parenthood. How do we raise kids who have an awareness of and a respect for the dangers in the world without scaring them too much? Thus the balancing act. My daughter (who is 4) has to hold my hand when we’re walking in a parking lot because other drivers might not see her by herself and could “smush“ her. She has to wear her seatbelt whenever we drive because it’s safer. And, she shouldn’t talk to strangers. I haven’t told her what would happen to her if she really did get smushed by a car, that people die in car accidents, or that some people are actually out to harm little kids. Some of these messages will come as she gets older and can understand more but I will try not to dwell on danger.
As she gets older, I plan to give similarly balanced messages about sex. Sex itself is a normal and healthy part of life. STDs are a potentially serious health issue. STDs can be avoided even if you are sexually active. It is important to do everything you can to avoid them. If you think you are at risk for an STD, it’s important to get tested and treated as soon as possible. And (this is the uniquely mom message), I will not be angry or think less of you if you get an STD, I will just do my best to help you.
Maybe this is what calling them normal would look like.
you know
Some years ago (5+), a CT state senator introduced a bill sponsoring mandatory STD testing for all entering college freshmen. Of course, it didn’t go through, and the religious right in my state made a huge stink of the “not MY child” variety. I remember that the state senator was denounced as “the state nut” in an editorial cartoon (because the state legislature was also voting on the grape as the state fruit during that session).
I just remember thinking that she made a huge amount of sense. It occurred to me that when I enrolled at UConn I couldn’t go without proof of a recent TB test. Now, how many college kids carry TB, vs. how many carry STDs? I bet I could guess an approximate ratio.
And requiring those tests early on DOES normalize the TESTING, if not the STDs, and I think that’s good. If it’s something that everybody has to do, it’s less likely to be stigmatized and folks who test positive are more likely to get treated.
Maybe someday . . .
I can’t help but point out
that there are some of the same type of risks, to say, participating in sports.
You COULD damage an ankle or wrist. It COULD cause lifelong pain. You could even be paralyzed or killed.
We don’t say, “Ha ha, you deserve tetanus for running around barefoot.”
I don’t know the answer myself, but this made me think.
Made me think, too.
Because I have certain medical conditions, I get a lot of side long looks that imply that I must have “done something” to have these things happen to me. For that reason, I’m very annoyed when illness of any kind is viewed as some kind of personal failing or retribution for “bad” behavior. To be honest, though, I’d never carried those thoughts through to STD’s.
Yep
People want to reassure themselves it won’t happen to them or someone they love, kwim? It’s so wrong. I’ve seen too much of that with cancer, but I can see how it would apply to heart issues too.
I know that I’ve always
hated the idea of attempts to turn young people against their bodies as a way of promoting “responsible” behavior. Now, I’m all for “responsible behavior”, but I don’t want my kids to think that there’s something “gross” about facts of life like pregnancy or the possibility of getting a “disease” of the reproductive organs.
I read an article once
that young girls are more afraid of catching an STD from another girl than from a boy they were having sex with, e.g. “I borrowed these pants from Stacy, but you know she’s a dirty ‘ho and now I’m afraid I’ll get crabs from her!” STD’s in that sense were something that only “dirty girls” get not something that person could contract from her male partner… so in other words, Men’s bodies A-OK and women’s bodies nasty pits of disease… got it!
I’m not sure. I don’t think you want our
children to think it’s fine and dandy to contract an STD. OTOH, it’s a fact of life and a risk of any sexual activity, even that inside of a monogamous relationship.
I think that was the point.
It’s not fine and dandy to get the flu either, but there isn’t a “slut shaming” aspect to getting the flu shot like there is for some girls when going to get Guardasil, ya know?
You’re 100% right.
Guys can be sexually active and it’s a sign of prowess. But God help the girls if they are because they must be sluts. Who else would get Guardasil but a ho?
maybe that is changing
because girls get the gardasil vacc so young [my DD was 11] that I don’t think anyone knows that she got it except me and her dad and her doctor. Oh, and her twin brother, because now he is getting the vaccination [he's had 2 of the 3 doses].
so I am hoping there won’t be any stigma of the vaccination because everyone (or many, many kids) will have had it at such a young age, it’s a non-issue?
That’s an excellent observaion.
With virtually every girl getting the vaccine so young, the stigma will be nonexistent.
And with the HIPPA regs, medical personnel are forbidden to divulge who they treat, let alone who gets what vaccine or treatment.
I grew up as a teen in the mid-60s. STDs were virtually unheard of–at least not openly discussed–and HIV/AIDS was decades down the road. The biggest fear was getting pregnant and the pill took care of that.
I remember reading an article back in the early 90s when AIDS was the rage and hot-button topic. The author opined that the baby boom generation was the last to be able to have mostly consequenceless sex. It is true to some extent because we didn’t have to worry about HIV/AIDS. DDs were teens in the 90s when everyone was paralysed by the fear of AIDS and all the other nasty STDs. It’s something the 60s and 70s kids had no concept or fear of.
Just read an article today
on how Guardasil has been a commercial failure due to so many people NOT vaccinating their children. People, this is a cancer vaccine, the only one I can think of; I mean, really…
not here in Australia
there’s a huge take-up in Australia, and early results are very, very positive – I posted a few months back that in Australia, new cases of genital warts in women have falled by, like, 2/3, after only three years of having Guardasil available. That’s presumed to mean that infection of the strain of HPV that causes cancer has also fallen at the same rate.
Well I am glad at least Australia is being
sensible. I actually got told by my BFF that she would not believe it if I got DD vaccinated at age 11. She had this insane over the top reaction. And BFF contracted a form of HPV from her husband and only sex partner, I was like WTF?! Obviously just being chaste doesn’t mean you won’t get it… oy.
it’s distributed for free
under Australia’s Medicare (public health system). It’s not mandatory (yet), but it sure is free.
The truth sounds like a fine plan.
Some STDs are more serious than others, they are all preventable. Here are the various STDs, here’s how to recognize them, here’s how to get them treated, and here’s how to prevent them. They ARE like any other disease…you don’t want to get one, and if you can prevent yourself from doing so, you do.
The social stigma isn’t particularly useful, and the truth should be quite enough.
Sounds a lot like drug education
That gets messed up too. There are forces that do not want us to speak honestly with the next generation.
Isn’t sexual health
pretty much the same as any other health issue? I mean, we teach them to brush their teeth to avoid tooth decay, we teach them to wash their hands to avoid germs so teaching them to look after their genitals isn’t really any different…is it?