Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

[James R]

This thread is for discussion of the related debate between ancientregime and James R. Anybody may comment on or discuss the debate here.

[thread=90901]Debate: Pedophilia is pseudoscience[/thread]
[thread=90786]Proposal: Is pedophilia pseudoscience[/thread]

 

[visceral_instinct]

Question for Ancient Regime.

Where exactly is your evidence that children manipulated into participating in sex acts with an adult, only feel revulsion because they have been brainwashed into doing so??

 

[ancientregime]

Question for Ancient Regime.

Where exactly is your evidence that children manipulated into participating in sex acts with an adult, only feel revulsion because they have been brainwashed into doing so??

I assume you think that every child that learn about sex from an adult must be being manipulated?

Not all are manipulatated. Humans have this thing that you may want to know about, because it seems you have a closed mind. It's called DISCOVERY. Guess what? There is nothing wrong with discoverring a way to pleasure yourself or others. You are obvious hung up on sexuality and believe thier is something fundametnally wrong with it.

When you learn how to call something exactly what it is (instead of what you have been brainwashed to feel) you look sex the way nature expresses it, not the way abject morality imposes it's idea upon it:

All the chemicals released produce euphoric and bonding feelings. This is represented as a psychological state. The body feels good. The mind represent that wonderful feeling. That's actually what they are learning about.

Do you have the ability to show, that they really should be feeling repulsed? No. You don't. Because all you have is a moral idea that you are imposing on a pleasurable act. Children would think of things naturally, which is the superior way to think, because they are filled with lies. But... danger, danger...

...someone like comes along and begins you emotional abuse doctrine. You tell the child they should ignore those natural feelings (somehow nature is wrong) and instead should feel what you were brainwashed to feel about it: repulsion.


Here is a great article for tampering minds that want to know.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I assume you think that every child that learn about sex from an adult must be being manipulated?

Not all are manipulatated. Humans have this thing that you may want to know about, because it seems you have a closed mind. It's called DISCOVERY. Guess what? There is nothing wrong with discoverring a way to pleasure yourself or others. You are obvious hung up on sexuality and believe thier is something fundametnally wrong with it.

When you learn how to call something exactly what it is (instead of what you have been brainwashed to feel) you look sex the way nature expresses it, not the way abject morality imposes it's idea upon it:

All the chemicals released produce euphoric and bonding feelings. This is represented as a psychological state. The body feels good. The mind represent that wonderful feeling. That's actually what they are learning about.

Do you have the ability to show, that they really should be feeling repulsed? No. You don't. Because all you have is a moral idea that you are imposing on a pleasurable act. Children would think of things naturally, which is the superior way to think, because they are filled with lies. But... danger, danger...

...someone like comes along and begins you emotional abuse doctrine. You tell the child they should ignore those natural feelings (somehow nature is wrong) and instead should feel what you were brainwashed to feel about it: repulsion.


Here is a great article for tampering minds that want to know.

I assume you think that every child that learn about sex from an adult must be being manipulated?

No, dude. I think that a child who HAS SEX WITH AN ADULT has obviously been manipulated, coerced, or otherwise induced to do something to which they are too young to consent.

Not all are manipulatated. Humans have this thing that you may want to know about, because it seems you have a closed mind. It's called DISCOVERY. Guess what? There is nothing wrong with discoverring a way to pleasure yourself or others.

I know that, thanks, I'm 18, I've been through early puberty like everyone else.

You are obvious hung up on sexuality and believe thier (sic) is something fundametnally (sic)wrong with it.

Oh hell no I'm not. I would love to have sex more often. With a male my own age, a sexually mature one, not a child.

When you learn how to call something exactly what it is (instead of what you have been brainwashed to feel) you look sex the way nature expresses it, not the way abject morality imposes it's idea upon it:

Nature, at least in normal individuals, tells us to seek a sexually mature mate, not a prepubescent child.

All the chemicals released produce euphoric and bonding feelings. This is represented as a psychological state. The body feels good. The mind represent that wonderful feeling. That's actually what they are learning about.

Go find me someone who was made or told to have sex with an adult as a child, and ask them if they found it pleasurable.

Do you have the ability to show, that they really should be feeling repulsed? No. You don't. Because all you have is a moral idea that you are imposing on a pleasurable act. Children would think of things naturally, which is the superior way to think, because they are filled with lies. But... danger, danger...

See above.

Show me one victim of a pedophile who found it natural and pleasurable.

 

[Asguard]

ancientregime i think you are confusing terms because the media confuses the terms all the time. As james stated pedophila is PRE pubesent, a 16 year old who is below the age of concent screwing someone who is over the age of concent is illegal (assuming 16 is below the age of concent which its not everywhere) but you could well argue that it shouldnt be and doesnt harm the person involved. However you are arguing PEDIOPHILA which is a compleatly different kettle of fish

to both yourself AND james, i take issue with both your comments assume that the only physical harm is direct. Yes penitrating a baby (this is pediophila you know ancientregime) WILL cause physical harm no matter how small the mans penis is but assume for instance that it causes no harm to an 8 year old. The risks of pregnancy and STD's still exist, does an 8 year old have the ability to access the risks of pregnancy and decide in an informed way that its acceptable? Ok yes by definition if they are able to fall pregant then they arnt prepubessant but STD's are still a risk. Can an 8 year old understand the risk of AIDS and take apropriate action? Can an 18 MONTH old?

i would contest that answer is a resounding NO

james one further point specificially to you, your ages are wrong. Pubity onset is from 8-11 so to be PRE pubessant (which is what pediophila is) you are talking about children younger than that age group.

 

[ancientregime]

I assume you think that every child that learn about sex from an adult must be being manipulated?

No, dude. I think that a child who HAS SEX WITH AN ADULT has obviously been manipulated, coerced, or otherwise induced to do something to which they are too young to consent.

Not all of them. Despite your morally narrow point of view, children do have sexual urges and do not need to be manipulated, coerced or induce to want to satisfy their own urges.

Children are old enough to consent to sex. They can feel good from it, they like it, and it does not harm them.

Not all are manipulated. Humans have this thing that you may want to know about, because it seems you have a closed mind. It's called DISCOVERY. Guess what? There is nothing wrong with discoverring a way to pleasure yourself or others.

I know that, thanks, I'm 18, I've been through early puberty like everyone else.

So you call yourself a child at 18? Isn't that what we were talking about?

You are obvious hung up on sexuality and believe there is something fundamentally something wrong with it.

Oh hell no I'm not. I would love to have sex more often. With a male my own age, a sexually mature one, not a child.

Again, we were talking about children, confusing yourself again with a child.

When you learn how to call something exactly what it is (instead of what you have been brainwashed to feel) you look sex the way nature expresses it, not the way abject morality imposes it's idea upon it:

Nature, at least in normal individuals, tells us to seek a sexually mature mate, not a prepubescent child.

You are wrong. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with any humans who consensually have sex. Your talking from a moral pulpit. Hallelujah! Praise ye be Jesus. Are you going to shake, quake, leap , jump, roll and bark next?

All the chemicals released produce euphoric and bonding feelings. This is represented as a psychological state. The body feels good. The mind represent that wonderful feeling. That's actually what they are learning about.

Go find me someone who was made or told to have sex with an adult as a child, and ask them if they found it pleasurable.

I'm in my late 30's, so I've been around the block a few times and traveled many times, so I haven't been stuck in a small little world where the outside doesn't exist. Ever met someone who's read a book you haven't? That's like me an you, You know nothing about the books I've read. I've had
lot of girlfriends that had it happen. Lost of friends that had it happen. The only abuse they felt was the fact it was taboo by their family or society. I had one friend who was raped repeatedly, and it was somepmr who people in the community would never expect it was. And btw, this rapist was the same age as the person they raped.

Do you have the ability to show, that they really should be feeling repulsed? No. You don't. Because all you have is a moral idea that you are imposing on a pleasurable act. Children would think of things naturally, which is the superior way to think, because they are filled with lies. But... danger, danger...

Show me one victim of a pedophile who found it natural and pleasurable.

That's impossible, because victims only are raped. You leave out the children who love sex. You wouldn't understand, they don't hang out with people like you. You only want to imprison their friends and family. They can see people like you from a mile away. Your ideas are nightmares to their lives.

 

[ancientregime]

The risks of pregnancy ... does an 8 year old have the ability to access the risks of pregnancy and decide in an informed way that its acceptable?

Most 8 year olds aren't having their periods. This is irrelevant.

Can an 8 year old understand the risk of AIDS and take apropriate action?

Disease is a danger of course. An 8 year could understand it as a danger. They may not be able to take appropriate actions.

But the threat of contracting AIDS is not evidence that proves that sex itself is harmful, especially sex that does pass disease.

Most people don't have HIV or AIDS. Only sex with someone who has AIDS is harmful. Most of the people involved in underage sex are family or friends. If friends or family did have a disease, they wouldn't give a child the disease. In rare cases, I'm sure it occurs.

 

[Asguard]

thats plainly false, AIDS may be rare but ALL STD's including AIDS and Hep ARNT rare, they are VERY common

 

[ancientregime]

thats plainly false, AIDS may be rare but ALL STD's including AIDS and Hep ARNT rare, they are VERY common

HIV/AID less that 1% of US population.

Hep C is less that 2%.

Still quite rare.

 

[Asguard]

oviously you dont know what your talking about

Chlamydia trachomatis infections are the most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States. They are among the most prevalent of all STDs and, since 1994, have comprised the largest proportion of all STDs reported to CDC (Table 1). Recent studies also demonstrate the high prevalence of chlamydial infections in the general U.S. population. Among young adults (18-26 years of age) participating in the nationally-representative National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health from 2001 to 2002, chlamydia prevalence was 4.2%.1

In women, chlamydial infections, which are usually asymptomatic, may result in pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which is a major cause of infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. Data from a randomized controlled trial of chlamydia screening in a managed care setting suggested that screening programs can lead to a reduction in the incidence of PID by as much as 60%.2 As with other inflammatory STDs, chlamydial infection can facilitate the transmission of HIV infection.3 In addition, pregnant women infected with chlamydia can pass the infection to their infants during delivery, potentially resulting in neonatal ophthalmia and pneumonia. Due to the large burden of disease and risks associated with infection, CDC recommends screening all sexually active women younger than 26 years of age for chlamydia annually.4

The increase in reported chlamydial infections during the last 10 years reflects the expansion of chlamydia screening activities, use of increasingly sensitive diagnostic tests, an increased emphasis on case reporting from providers and laboratories, improvements in the information systems for reporting, and, possibly, true increases in disease. However, many women who are at risk are still not being tested, reflecting, in part, lack of awareness among some health care providers and limited resources available to support screening. Chlamydia screening and reporting are likely to continue to expand further in response to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) annual measure assessing chlamydia screening coverage of sexually active women 16 through 25 years of age who receive medical care through commercial or Medicaid managed care organizations.5 In 2007, 36.4% of women aged 16-20 years were screened in commercial care settings; in Medicaid populations, 48.8% of women aged 16-20 years were screened.6

To better monitor trends in disease burden in defined populations during the expansion of chlamydia screening activities, data on chlamydia positivity and prevalence among persons screened in a variety of settings are used. In most instances, test positivity serves as a reasonable approximation of prevalence.7

Chlamydia – United States
In 2000, for the first time, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had regulations requiring the reporting of chlamydia cases.

In 2007, 1,108,374 chlamydial infections were reported to CDC from 50 states and the District of Columbia (Table 1). This case count corresponds to a rate of 370.2 cases per 100,000 population, an increase of 7.5% compared with the rate of 344.3 in 2006. The reported number of chlamydial infections was over three times the number of reported cases of gonorrhea (355,991 gonorrhea cases were reported in 2007) (Table 1).

From 1988 through 2007, the rate of reported chlamydial infection increased from 87.1 to 370.2 cases per 100,000 population (Figure 1, Table 1).

Chlamydia by Region
For the years 1998 to 2007, overall rates were similar in the Midwest, West, and South (Figure 2). Rates have consistently remained lowest in the Northeast. In 2007, reported cases continued to increase in all regions (Table 3).

Chlamydia by State
In 2007, chlamydia rates per 100,000 population by state ranged from 156.3 cases in New Hampshire to 745.1 cases in Mississippi (Figure 3, Table 2). Fifteen states, the District of Columbia, and Guam had chlamydia case rates higher than 400 cases per 100,000 population.

Chlamydia by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
In 2007, the chlamydia case rate per 100,000 population in the 50 most populous MSAs increased overall, among both women and men (Table 6). Among women, the 2007 case rate of 568.7 was a 7.7% increase over the 2006 case rate of 528.1 (Table 7). The 2007 case rate among men (211.8 per 100,000 population) increased 11.9% from the 2006 case rate (189.2) (Table 8). In 2007, 57.3% of chlamydia cases were reported by these MSAs.

Chlamydia by County
Counties in the United States with the highest chlamydia case rates per 100,000 population were located primarily in the Southeast and West, including Alaska (Figure 4). In 2007, 597 (19.0%) of 3,140 counties had rates greater than 400.0 cases per 100,000 population. Rates per 100,000 population were 300.0 or less in 2,228 counties (71.0%) and between 300.1 and 400.0 in 315 counties (10.0%). Fifty-three counties and independent cities reported 40% of all chlamydia cases in 2007 (Table 9). Case rates ranged from 247.9 (Miami-Dade County, Florida) to 1,265.0 (St. Louis (City), Missouri) per 100,000 population.

Chlamydia by Sex
In 2007, the overall rate of reported chlamydial infection among women in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (543.6 cases per 100,000 females) was almost three times higher than the rate among men (190.0 cases per 100,000 males), likely reflecting a greater number of women screened for this infection (Figure 1, Tables 4 and 5). The lower rates among men also suggest that many of the sex partners of women with chlamydia are not being diagnosed or reported as having chlamydia. However, with the advent of highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) that can be performed on urine, symptomatic and asymptomatic men are increasingly being diagnosed with chlamydial infection. From 2003 through 2007, the chlamydial infection rate in men increased by 42.9% (from 133.0 to 190.0 cases per 100,000 males) compared with a 17.3% increase in women during the same period (from 463.6 to 543.6 cases per 100,000 females).

Chlamydia by Age
Among women, the highest age-specific rates of reported chlamydia in 2007 were among those 15 to 19 years of age (3,004.7 cases per 100,000 females) and 20 to 24 years of age (2,948.8 cases per 100,000 females) (Figure 5, Table 10). When compared to 2003, case rates per 100,000 women have increased in these two age groups by 12.4% and 17.3%, respectively. These increased rates in women may, in part, reflect increased screening in this group. Age-specific rates among men, while substantially lower than the rates among women, were highest in the 20- to 24-year-old age group (932.9 cases per 100,000 males) (Figure 5, Table 10). Chlamydia case rates among men have increased in most age groups since 2003.

Chlamydia by Race/Ethnicity
In 2007, chlamydia rates increased for all racial and ethnic groups except American Indian/Alaska Natives. (Figure 6, Table 11B). The rate of chlamydia among blacks was over eight times higher than that of whites (1,398.7 and 162.3 cases per 100,000, respectively). The rates among American Indian/Alaska Natives (732.9) and Hispanics (473.2) were also higher than that of whites (4.5 and 2.9 times higher, respectively). In 2007, the chlamydia case rate per 100,000 population among Asian/Pacific Islanders was 139.5.

Chlamydia by Reporting Source
The majority of chlamydia cases reported in 2007 were from venues outside of STD clinics (Table A2). Over time, the proportion of cases reported from non-STD clinic sites has continued to increase (Figure 7). In 2007, among women, only 11.9% of chlamydia cases were reported through an STD clinic (98,382 of 825,660 total cases). In contrast, among men, 33.1% of chlamydia cases were reported through an STD clinic in 2007 (92,906 of 280,337 total cases).

Chlamydia Prevalence in the Population
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a nationally-representative survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized 14- to 39-year old population and provides an important measure of chlamydia disease burden. From 1999 to 2002, the overall prevalence of chlamydia infection was 2.2% and was similar between males and females (2.0% and 2.5%, respectively).8 Prevalence was higher among non-Hispanic blacks than non-Hispanic whites in all age groups (Figure 8).

Chlamydia Prevalence Monitoring Project
Chlamydia screening and prevalence monitoring activities were initiated in Health and Human Services (HHS) Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington) in 1988 as a CDC-supported demonstration project. In 1993, chlamydia screening services for women were expanded to three additional HHS regions (III, VII, and VIII) and, in 1995, to the remaining HHS regions (I, II, IV, V, VI, and IX). In some regions, federally-funded chlamydia screening supplements local-and state-funded screening programs. Screening criteria and practices vary by region and state.

Family Planning Clinics
In 2007, the median state-specific chlamydia test positivity among 15- to 24-year-old women who were screened during visits to selected family planning clinics in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands was 6.9% (range: 2.9% to 16.8%) (Figures 9 and 10). Since 1997, the median chlamydia positivity rate has slightly increased over time. This increase is likely due primarily to increasing usage of more sensitive test technology. See Appendix (Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis Prevalence Monitoring) for details.

Chlamydia test positivity among 15-24-year-old women screened in family planning clinics fluctuated in all 10 HHS regions between 2003 and 2007 (Figure 11). Positivity has remained fairly stable in four regions (I, III, V, X). From 2003 to 2006, slight decreases in positivity occurred in one region (II), followed by a small increase in 2007. In the remaining five regions (IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX), positivity rates increased slightly over the five-year time frame from 2003 to 2007. The positivity rates presented in Figure 11 are not adjusted for changes in laboratory test methods and associated increases in test sensitivity. Utilization of more sensitive tests has been shown to impact positivity rates.9 Usage of NAAT technology in family planning clinics to screen women aged 15-24 years for chlamydia is widespread (Figure 12). In four regions, NAATs were used nearly exclusively from 2003 to 2007 (I, V, VII, VIII). By 2007, five additional regions used NAATs over 50% of the time (II, III, IV, IX, X). Only one region (VI) reported a low NAAT-usage rate in 2007; however, usage increased from 2003 to 2007.

Chlamydia Among Special Populations
Additional information on chlamydia screening programs for women of reproductive age and chlamydia among adolescents, minority populations, and in corrections facilities can be found in the Special Focus Profiles.

Chlamydia Summary
Both prevalence and reported cases of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections remain high across age groups, racial/ethnic groups, geographic locales, and both sexes. The burden of chlamydia appears higher among women, especially those of younger age (15 to 19 and 20 to 24 years of age), but this may be a reflection of persons recommended for screening. Racial differences also persist; case rates among blacks continue to be substantially higher than rates among other racial/ethnic groups.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/chlamydia.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/5.htm

Background
Gonorrhea is the second most commonly-reported notifiable disease in the United States. Infections due to Neisseria gonorrhoeae, like those resulting from Chlamydia trachomatis, are a major cause of PID in the United States. PID can lead to serious outcomes in women such as tubal infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. In addition, epidemiologic and biologic studies provide strong evidence that gonococcal infections facilitate the transmission of HIV infection.1

From 1975 through 1997, the national gonorrhea rate declined 74% following implementation of the national gonorrhea control program in the mid-1970s (Figure 13). For the past ten years, however, gonorrhea rates appear to have reached a plateau, unfortunately still far from the Healthy People 2010 target of 19 cases per 100,000 population (Figure 14 and Table 1).

Increases in gonorrhea rates in eight western states from 2000 to 2005 have been described among a wide variety of populations in the affected states.2 Increases in quinolone-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae (QRNG) in 2006 led to changes in national guidelines that now limit the recommended treatment of gonorrhea to a single class of drug, the cephalosporins.3 The combination of increases in gonorrhea morbidity in some populations with increases in resistance and decreased treatment options have reinforced the need for better understanding of the epidemiology of gonorrhea.

Although gonorrhea case reporting is useful for monitoring trends in gonorrhea, true increases or decreases in disease burden may be masked by changes in screening practices (affected by concomitant testing for chlamydia and broader use of urine-based testing), use of diagnostic tests with differing test performance, and changes in reporting practices.4

For most areas, the number of gonorrhea cases reported to CDC is affected by many factors, in addition to the occurrence of the infection within the population. As with reporting of other STDs, reporting of gonorrhea cases to CDC is incomplete.5 For these reasons, supplemental data on gonorrhea prevalence in persons screened in a variety of different settings are useful in assessing disease burden in selected populations.

Gonorrhea – United States
In 2007, 355,991 cases of gonorrhea were reported in the United States. The rate of reported gonorrhea in the United States was 118.9 cases per 100,000 population in 2007 (Figure 13 and Table 1), a decrease of 0.7% since 2006. Gonorrhea rates have remained relatively stable for over 10 years.

Gonorrhea by Region
As in previous years, in 2007 the South had the highest gonorrhea rate among the four regions of the country (156.0 cases per 100,000 population). Rates in the South and Midwest have remained substantially higher than rates in the Northeast and West. Rates in all regions over the last year have shown little change (Figure 15 and Table 13).

An evaluation of increases in gonorrhea in eight western states from 2000 to 2005 suggested that increases were likely due to a variety of factors such as changes in testing practices (increased volume and use of more sensitive tests) as well as real increases in disease.2

Gonorrhea by State
In 2007, only seven states and Puerto Rico had gonorrhea rates below the HP2010 national target of 19 cases per 100,000 population (Figure 16 and Tables 12 and 13).6 This is an increase from 2006 of three states (Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming) that now meet the HP2010 target.

Gonorrhea by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
The overall gonorrhea rate in the 50 most populous MSAs was 129.4 cases per 100,000 population in 2007. This is essentially unchanged from 2006. All of these MSAs had rates higher than the HP2010 target of 19 cases per 100,000 population. In 2007, 58.6% of gonorrhea cases were reported by these MSAs (Table 16). Similar to previous years, in 2007 the total gonorrhea rate among females in these MSAs (128.4) remained similar to that among males (129.9) (Tables 17 and 18).

Gonorrhea by County
In 2007, 1,305 (41.6%) of 3,140 counties in the United States had gonorrhea rates at or below the HP2010 national target of 19 cases per 100,000 population. Rates per 100,000 population were between 19 and 100 in 1,099 counties (35.0%), and greater than 100 in 736 counties (23.4%). The majority of counties with greater than 100 cases per 100,000 population were located in the South (Figure 17).

In 2007, 50% of reported gonorrhea cases occurred in just 69 counties or independent cities (Table 19).

Gonorrhea by Sex
Prior to 1996, rates of gonorrhea among men were higher than rates among women. For the seventh consecutive year, however, gonorrhea rates among women and men were similar with rates among women being slightly higher (Figure 14). In 2007, the gonorrhea rate among women was 123.5 and the rate among men was 113.7 cases per 100,000 population (Tables 14 and 15).

Gonorrhea by Age
In 2007, gonorrhea rates continued to be highest among adolescents and young adults. Among females in 2007, 15- to 19 and 20- to 24-year-old women had the highest rates of gonorrhea (647.9 and 614.5, respectively). Among males, the rate was highest in those 20 to 24 years of age (450.1) (Figure 18 and Table 20).

From 2003 to 2007, slight increases were seen among the age groups under 35 years (4.8% among those 15 to 19 years of age, 2.6% among those 20 to 24 years of age, 5.8% among those 25 to 29 years of age, and 4.3% among those 30 to 34 years of age) (Table 20). Slight decreases were seen among those 35 to 39 years of age (4.6%), and those 40 to 44 years of age (2.0%).

Among females between 15 and 44 years of age (from 2003 to 2007) increases were greatest in those 25 to 29 years of age (10.9%) and those 30 to 34 years of age (11.4%). Among males between 15 and 44 years of age, increases over that time period were seen among those 15 to 19 years of age (9.5%) and those 25 to 29 years of age (1.5%) (Figures 19 and 20, and Table 20).

Gonorrhea by Race/Ethnicity
In 2007, gonorrhea rates remained highest among blacks (662.9 cases per 100,000 population, Table 21B and Figure 21). Similar to recent years, the rate among blacks was 19.1 times greater than the rate among whites (34.7 cases per 100,000 population). Gonorrhea rates were 3.1 times greater among American Indian/Alaska Natives (107.1 cases per 100,000 population), and 2.0 times greater among Hispanics (69.2 cases per 100,000 population) than among whites in 2007. Rates among whites were 1.8 times higher than those among Asian Pacific Islanders (18.8 cases per 100,000 population in 2007 (Figure 21).

Between 2003 and 2007, gonorrhea rates showed no marked changes for any racial or ethnic group, except for a 14.9% decline among Asian Pacific Islanders. There was a 21.8% decline among American Indian/Alaska Natives from 2006 to 2007 (Figure 21 and Table 21B). Additional information on gonorrhea among minority populations can be found in the Special Focus Profiles.

Gonorrhea by Region and Sex
Between 2003 and 2007, gonorrhea rates among women increased 19.1% in the West, 8.7% in the South, and 5.5% in the Midwest. Gonorrhea rates among women decreased 19.7% in the Northeast during the same time period.

Between 2003 and 2007, gonorrhea rates among men increased 15.1% in the West and 1.7% in the South, and decreased 9.4% in the Northeast and 0.5% in the Midwest (Tables 14 and 15).

Gonorrhea by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
From 2003 to 2007, overall rates among white, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and black men increased (2.7%, 2.6%, 1.0%, and 0.4% respectively). Gonorrhea rates decreased only among Asian/Pacific Islander males (5.3%) (Table 21B).

Between 2003 and 2007 the overall rate among white, American Indian/Alaska Native, and black women increased (9.0%, 6.1%, and 3.8% respectively). However, decreases were seen among Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic women (21.8% and 3.4% respectively) (Table 21B).

Currently, 15- to 19-year-old black women still have the highest gonorrhea rate of any group (2,955.7 per 100,000 population), closely followed by 20- to 24-year-old black women (2,789.2), and 20- to 24-year-old black men (2,451.3).

Gonorrhea by Reporting Source
In 2007, 26.7% of gonorrhea cases were reported by STD clinics (Table A2). This is a slight change from 2003, when 29.9% of gonorrhea cases were reported by STD clinics. In 2007, a higher proportion of male gonorrhea cases were reported from STD clinics than female cases (37.2% and 17.3% respectively) (Figure 22 and Table A2).

Gonorrhea Prevalence Monitoring Project
Gonorrhea test positivity data are available from a variety of settings. Screening criteria and practices may vary by state and over time.

Family Planning Clinics
In 2007, the median state-specific gonorrhea test positivity among 15- to 24-year-old women screened in selected family planning clinics in 43 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands was 0.9% (range: 0.1% to 4.9%) (Figure 23). Median gonorrhea positivity in family planning clinics has shown minimal change in recent years (range: 0.8% to 1.1% between 2003 and 2007).

Prenatal Clinics
For women attending selected prenatal clinics in 19 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the median positivity was 0.8% (range: 0.0% to 3.9%) (Figure D). Median gonorrhea positivity in prenatal clinics has shown minimal change in recent years (range: 0.8% to1.0% between 2003 and 2007).

National Job Training Program
Among 16- to 24-year-old women entering the National Job Training Program in 36 states and Puerto Rico in 2007, the median state-specific gonorrhea prevalence was 3.0% (range: 0.0% to 7.2%) (Figure M). Among men entering the program from 32 states and Puerto Rico in 2007, the median state-specific gonorrhea positivity was 1.1% (range: 0.0% to 4.4%) (Figure N).

Juvenile Corrections
In 2007, the median positivity for gonorrhea by facility in women entering 52 juvenile corrections facilities was 5.3% (range: 0.0% to 13.9%). In men entering 90 juvenile corrections facilities in 2007, the median was 1.0% (range: 0.0% to 4.5%) (Table C).

Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP)
Antimicrobial resistance remains an important consideration in the treatment of gonorrhea.3,7-14 In 1986, the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP), a national sentinel surveillance system, was established to monitor trends in antimicrobial susceptibilities of strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the United States among selected STD clinics in approximately 25-30 GISP sentinel sites14 (Figure 24).

Overall in 2007, 27% of isolates collected from 29 of 30 GISP sites were resistant to penicillin, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, or some combination of those antibiotics (Figure 25).

Quinolone-resistant N. Gonorrhoeae (QRNG)
Resistance to ciprofloxacin (a fluoroquinolone in the quinolone family of antimicrobials) was first identified in GISP sites in 1991. From 1991 through 1998, fewer than nine quinolone-resistant N. gonorrhoeae (QRNG) isolates were identified each year, and such isolates were identified in only a few GISP clinics. However since 1999 QRNG prevalence has steadily increased, first in Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, then in the Western states, and then among MSM.7,9,10 In 2007, 891 (14.8%) of 6,009 GISP isolates collected were identified as QRNG, an increase from 2006, when 843/6,089 (13.8%) isolates were identified as QRNG (Figure 26). QRNG isolates were identified from all 29 GISP sites that submitted isolates in 2007. GISP did not receive any isolates from Tripler in 2007.

QRNG by Region
In 2007, QRNG increased most markedly in those regions where prevalence had been relatively low.

In 2007, 20 (28.6%) of 70 isolates submitted from Honolulu demonstrated ciprofloxacin-resistance, a decrease from 34 (35.8%) of 95 isolates in 2006.

From 2006 to 2007, several western sites demonstrated an increase in the number of isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin. In Albuquerque, the prevalence of QRNG more than doubled to 16.7% of isolates collected in 2007 from 7.3% in 2006; in Denver, 17% were resistant to fluoroquinolones in 2007 compared with 15.7% in 2006; in Las Vegas, the prevalence also doubled to 18.7% in 2007 from 8.7% in 2006; in Long Beach, 30.4% were resistant in 2007 compared to 28.4% in 2006; in Orange County, 41% were resistant in 2007 compared with 34.6% in 2006; in Portland, 28.6% were resistant in 2007 compared with 27.2% in 2006; and in San Diego, 36.3% were resistant in 2007 compared with 35.1% in 2006. The prevalence in Los Angeles was relatively the same at 22.4% in 2007. In other western sites such as Phoenix, San Francisco, and Seattle, the prevalence of QRNG decreased slightly during the same time period. In Phoenix, 8.7% of isolates were QRNG when compared with 11.9% in 2006; in San Francisco, the prevalence of QRNG decreased to 31.3% in 2007 from 44.5% in 2006; and in Seattle to 29.3% in 2007 from 31.8% in 2006.

In the South from 2006 to 2007, most of the sites continued to observe increases in the prevalence of QRNG. In Baltimore, QRNG resistance increased to 2% in 2007 from 1.4% in 2006; in Birmingham, the prevalence increased about eight fold to 9.4% in 2007 from 1.1% in 2006; in Dallas, the prevalence increased to 7.5% from 6.1%; in Greensboro, it tripled to 5.3% from 1.7%; in New Orleans it increased to 18.1% from 10.2%; and in Oklahoma City, it increased to 6% from 4.3%. However, in Atlanta, where isolates were submitted from January-April 2007 only, the prevalence of QRNG decreased to 2.6% in 2007 from 5.7% in 2006. In Miami, the prevalence of QRNG remained about the same in 2007 at 19.6%.

In the Midwest and Northeast there were dramatic increases in prevalence of QRNG from 2006 to 2007 among several sites. In Chicago, the prevalence of isolates that were resistant to ciprofloxacin doubled to 8.6% in 2007 from 4.1% in 2006; in Cincinnati, the prevalence almost doubled to 1.2% in 2007 from 0.7% in 2006; in Detroit, it increased by five fold to 1.7% in 2007 from 0.3% in 2006; in Minneapolis, it doubled to 10.7% in 2007 from 5.7% in 2006; and in New York City, it also almost doubled to 14.9% in 2007 from 7.6% in 2006. There was a decrease in QRNG prevalence in Cleveland to 0.7% in 2007 from 3.1% in 2006 and in Philadelphia to 29.1% from 30.3%, respectively.

New sites in GISP that identified ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates included Kansas City and Richmond. Kansas City rejoined GISP in September 2007 and observed a QRNG prevalence of 16.4% in 2007. Richmond started collection in November 2007 and QRNG was identified in 17.9% of isolates.

QRNG by Sexual Behavior
The prevalence of QRNG in isolates from MSM slightly decreased from 39% in 2006 to 36% in 2007. During the same time period, the prevalence of QRNG in isolates from heterosexuals increased from 7% to 9% (Figure 27).

As a result of high and continued widespread prevalence of QRNG among MSM and then more recently, among heterosexuals, CDC revised the 2006 CDC STD Treatment Guidelines in April 2007.3 Therefore, CDC states that fluoroquinolones are no longer recommended for use in the United States for the treatment of gonococcal infections and associated conditions such as pelvic inflammatory disease.3

Other Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
The proportion of GISP isolates demonstrating decreased susceptibility to ceftriaxone or cefixime has remained very low over time. Overall in GISP, from 1987 to 2007, there have been a total of four isolates with decreased susceptibility to ceftriaxone (all four had minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 0.5 μg/ml) and 48 isolates with decreased susceptibility to cefixime (MIC range from 0.5-2.0 μg/ml) in GISP. In 2007, there were no isolates identified with decreased susceptibility to ceftriaxone. (Note: Cefixime was discontinued in 2007 from the GISP antibiotic susceptibility panel.)

The proportion of GISP isolates demonstrating elevated MICs to azithromycin has been increasing since GISP began monitoring azithromycin susceptibility in 1992. In 2005, there was a change in the media used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing which resulted in an observational shift of the MIC curve for azithromycin. Thus, the azithromycin MIC for decreased susceptibility was changed from ≥1.0 μg/ml to ≥ 2.0 μg/ml in 2005 and thereafter. In 2007, 0.5% (27/6,009) isolates had azithromycin MIC ≥ 2.0 μg/ml compared to 0.2% (14/6,089) in 2006.

Additional information on antimicrobial susceptibility data and on GISP may be found in the 2007 GISP report8 or the GISP website: http://www.cdc.gov/std/GISP

Gonorrhea Among Special Populations
Additional information about gonorrhea in racial and ethnic minority populations, adolescents, MSM, and other at risk populations can be found in the Special Focus Profiles.

Gonorrhea Summary
In summary, the national gonorrhea rate has remained relatively unchanged for approximately ten years. Unfortunately the 2007 rate of 118.9 cases per 100,000 population is still greater than the Healthy People 2010 goal of 19 cases per 100,000 population. Of particular concern are the persistent high rates in some geographic areas, adolescents and young adults, and some racial/ethnic groups.

Although fluoroquinolones are no longer recommended for treatment of gonococcal infections in the U.S., GISP data continues to show widespread increases in QRNG prevalence throughout the country. With only one class of antibiotics recommended for treating gonorrhea, continued monitoring for the emergence of decreased susceptibility and resistance to cephalosporins is critical.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/gonorrhea.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/13.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/18.htm

Background
Syphilis, a genital ulcerative disease, causes significant complications if untreated and facilitates the transmission of HIV. Untreated early syphilis in pregnant women results in perinatal death in up to 40% of cases and, if acquired during the four years preceding pregnancy, may lead to infection of the fetus in 80% of cases.1

The rate of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis reported in the United States decreased during the 1990s; in 2000, the rate was the lowest since reporting began in 1941 (Figure 28). The low rate of infectious syphilis and the concentration of the majority of syphilis cases in a small number of geographic areas in the United States led to the development of the CDCs National Plan to Eliminate Syphilis, which was announced by Surgeon General David Satcher in October 1999 and revised in May 2006.2

Although the rate of P&S syphilis in the United States declined 89.7% between 1990 and 2000, the rate of P&S syphilis increased annually between 2001 and 2007. Overall increases in rates between 2001 and 2007 were observed primarily among men (from 3.0 cases per 100,000 population to 6.6 cases per 100,000 population). After persistent declines from 1992 to 2003, the rate of P&S syphilis among women increased from 0.8 cases per 100,000 population in 2004 to 0.9 cases per 100,000 population in 2005 to 1.0 case per 100,000 population in 2006, to 1.1 case per 100,000 population in 2007.

Syphilis remains an important problem in the South and in urban areas in other regions of the country. Increases in cases among MSM have occurred and have been characterized by high rates of HIV co-infection and high-risk sexual behavior.3-7 The estimated proportion of P&S syphilis cases attributable to MSM increased from 4% in 2000 to 62% in 2004. In 2005, CDC requested that all state health departments report sex of sex partners for persons with syphilis. In 2007, 65% of those P&S syphilis cases in 44 states and Washington D.C. with available information were among MSM. Of reported male cases with P&S syphilis, sex of partner information in 2007 was available for 79%.

Syphilis — All Stages (P&S, Early Latent, Late, Late Latent, Congenital)
Between 2006 and 2007, the number of cases of early latent syphilis reported to CDC increased 17.2% (from 9,186 to 10,768), while the number of cases of late and late latent syphilis increased 3.5% (from 17,644 to 18,256) (Table 1). The total number of cases of syphilis (all stages: P&S, early latent, late, late latent, and congenital syphilis) reported to CDC increased 10.7% (from 36,968 to 40,920) between 2006 and 2007 (Table 1).

P&S Syphilis — United States
In 2007, P&S syphilis cases reported to CDC increased to 11,466 from 9,756 in 2006, an increase of 17.5%. The rate of P&S syphilis in the United States in 2007 (3.8 cases per 100,000 population) was 15.2% higher than the rate in 2006 (3.3 cases per 100,000 population), and it is greater than the HP 2010 target of 0.2 case per 100,000 population (Figure 29, Table 1).10

P&S Syphilis by Region
The South accounted for 48.8% of the P&S syphilis cases in 2007 and 47.1% in 2006. Between 2006 and 2007, rates increased 21.4% in the South (from 4.2 to 5.1 cases per 100,000 population), 30.8% in the Northeast (from 2.6 to 3.4), 8.1% in the West (from 3.7 to 4.0) and 5.6% in the Midwest (from 1.8 to 1.9). The 2007 rates in all regions were greater than the HP 2010 target of 0.2 cases per 100,000 population (Figure 30, Table 25).

P&S Syphilis by State
In 2007, P&S syphilis rates in three states were less than or equal to the HP 2010 target of 0.2 case per 100,000 population (Figure 31, Table 24). Four states and one outlying area reported five or fewer cases of P&S syphilis in 2007 (Table 24).

P&S Syphilis by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
The rate of P&S syphilis in 2007 for the 50 most populous MSAs (5.7) exceeded the HP 2010 target of 0.2 cases per 100,000 population (Table 28).

P&S Syphilis by County
In 2007, 2,275 of 3,140 counties (72.4%) in the United States reported no cases of P&S syphilis compared with 2,360 (75.2%) in 2006. Of 865 counties reporting at least one case of P&S syphilis in 2007, five (0.6%) had rates at or below the HP2010 target of 0.2 cases per 100,000 population. Rates of P&S syphilis were above the HP2010 target for 860 counties in 2007 (Figure 32). These 860 counties (27.4% of the total number of counties in the United States) accounted for 99.9% of the total P&S syphilis cases reported in 2007. In 2007, half of the total number of P&S syphilis cases were reported from 23 counties and two cities (Table 31).

P&S Syphilis by Sex
The rate of P&S syphilis increased 17.9% among men (from 5.6 cases to 6.6 cases per 100,000 men) between 2006 and 2007 (Figure 29, Table 27). During this time, the rate increased 10.0% among women from 1.0 to 1.1 cases per 100,000 women (Figure 29, Table 26).

P&S Syphilis by Age
In 2007, the rate of P&S syphilis was highest in persons in the 25- to 29-year-old age group (8.9 cases per 100,000 population) (Figure 33 and Table 32).

Between 2006 and 2007, P&S syphilis rates in most age groups among men and women increased (Table 32 and Figures 34 and 35).

P&S Syphilis by Race/Ethnicity
From 2006 to 2007, the rate of P&S syphilis increased in all racial and ethnic groups except Asian/Pacific Islanders (Figure 36). The rate increased 5.3% among non-Hispanic whites (from 1.9 to 2.0), 25% among blacks (from 11.2 to 14.0), 22.9% among Hispanics (from 3.5 to 4.3), and 6.3% among American Indian/Alaska Natives (from 3.2 to 3.4). The rate remained the same at 1.2 cases per 100,000 population among Asian/Pacific Islanders (Table 33B).

P&S Syphilis by Sex and Sex Behavior
The male to female rate ratio for P&S syphilis has risen steadily since 1996 when it was 1.2, suggesting an increase among MSM. In 2007, the rate of P&S syphilis in males was 6.0 times that in females, an increase from 5.7 in 2006.

In 2005, CDC began collecting information on the sexual orientation of patients with P&S syphilis. In 2007, this information was available for 79% of male cases.

In 2007, the stage of disease was reported as follows: among heterosexual men with P&S syphilis, 43.0% had primary syphilis and 57% had secondary syphilis. Among female patients, 17.9% had primary syphilis and 82.1% had secondary syphilis. Among men who had sex with men with P&S syphilis, 24.3% had primary syphilis and 75.7% had secondary syphilis (Figure 37).

Of females with P&S syphilis, 21.9% were white, 63.5% were black, 9.6% were Hispanic, and 5.0% were of other races/ethnicities. Of heterosexual men, 19.3% were white, 59.8% were black, 16.1% were Hispanic, and 4.8% were of other race/ethnicities. Of men who had sex with men, 40.8% were white, 33.2% were black, 19.3% were Hispanic, and 6.7% were of other races/ethnicities (Figure 38).

P&S Syphilis by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
From 2006 to 2007, the P&S syphilis rate among non-Hispanic white males increased 5.7% (from 3.5 to 3.7), and increased among non-Hispanic white females as well (from 0.3 to 0.4). The rate increased 28.2% among black males (from 18.1 to 23.2) and 14.3% among black females (from 4.9 to 5.6). The rate increased 25.0% among Hispanic males (from 6.0 to 7.5), but remained unchanged among Hispanic females (0.8). The rate remained unchanged for both Asian/Pacific Island males (2.4), and Asian/Pacific Island females (0.1). The rate increased 36.8% among American Indian/Alaska Native females (from 1.9 to 2.6), but decreased 8.5% among American Indian/Alaska Native males (from 4.7 to 4.3) (Table 33B).

P&S Syphilis by Race/Ethnicity, Age, and Sex
In 2007, the rate of P&S syphilis among blacks was highest among women aged 20 to 24 years (16.0) and among men aged 20 to 24 years (57.5) and 25 to 29 years (57.4). For non-Hispanic whites, the rate was highest among women aged 20 to 24 years (1.1) and among men aged 40 to 44 years (10.4). For Hispanics, the rate was highest among women aged 20 to 24 years (2.3) and among men aged 40 to 44 years (15.5). For Asian/Pacific Islanders, the rate was highest among women aged 20 to 24 years and 30 to 34 years (both 0.4) and among men aged 25 to 29 years (5.8). For American Indian/Alaska Natives, the rate was highest among women aged 25 to 29 years (7.8) and among men aged 30 to 34 years (18.2) (Table 33B).

P&S Syphilis by Reporting Source
In 1990, 25.6% of P&S syphilis cases were reported from sources other than STD clinics; this figure increased to 39.2% in 1998. Between 1998 and 2007, the proportion of P&S syphilis cases reported from sources other than STD clinics increased from 39.2% to 68.7% (Figure 39 and Table A2). Between 2001 and 2007, the number of cases among males reported from non-STD clinic sources increased sharply while the number from STD clinics increased slightly (Figure 39).

During 2007, patients with P&S syphilis primarily sought care with private physicians or STD clinics. Men who have sex with men were more frequently reported from private physicians (36.7%) than STD clinics (27.1%) (Figure 40). More cases among women and heterosexual men were reported from STD clinics than private physicians.

Congenital Syphilis — United States
After 14 years of decline in the United States, the rate of congenital syphilis increased 12.9% between 2006 and 2007 (from 9.3 to 10.5 cases per 100,000 live births) (Table 39). In 2007, 430 cases were reported, an increase from 382 in 2006. This increase in the rate of congenital syphilis may relate to the increase in the rate of P&S syphilis among women that has occurred in recent years (Figure 41).

Congenital Syphilis by State
In 2007, 29 states, the District of Columbia, and two outlying area had rates of congenital syphilis that exceeded the HP 2010 target of one case per 100,000 live births (Tables 38 and 39).

Syphilis Among Special Populations
Additional information about syphilis and congenital syphilis in racial and ethnic minority populations, adolescents, MSM, and other at-risk populations can be found in the Special Focus Profiles.

Syphilis Summary
In recent years, MSM have accounted for an increasing number of estimated syphilis cases in the United States9 and now account for 65% of syphilis cases in the United States based on information from 44 states and Washington, D.C. Despite the majority of U.S. syphilis cases occurring among MSM, syphilis cases among heterosexuals is an emerging problem given the recent increases among women and infants.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/syphilis.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/28.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/33.htm

Chancroid
Since 1987, reported cases of chancroid declined steadily until 2001. Since then, the number of cases reported has fluctuated (Figure 42, Table 1). In 2007, 23 cases of chancroid were reported in the United States. Only eight states reported one or more cases of chancroid in 2007 (Table 41). Although the overall decline in reported chancroid cases most likely reflects a decline in the incidence of this disease, these data should be interpreted with caution since Haemophilus ducreyi, the causative organism of chancroid, is difficult to culture and, as a result, this condition may be substantially under-diagnosed.1,2

Human Papillomavirus
Persistent infection with high risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) can lead to development of anogenital cancers (i.e., cervical cancer). In June 2006, a quadrivalent HPV vaccine was licensed for use in the United States. The vaccine provides protection against types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Types 6 and 11 are associated with genital warts while types 16 and 18 are oncogenic types associated with anogenital cancers.

Sentinel surveillance for cervical infection with high-risk human papillomavirus types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, or 68 was conducted in 26 STD, family planning and primary care clinics in six locations (Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, Denver, Seattle and Los Angeles) as part of an effort to estimate national burden of disease and inform prevention programs such as vaccine programs in the U.S. Testing was performed using a commercially available test for HR-HPV DNA (Hybrid Capture 2, Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD). Results from 2003-2005 document an overall HR-HPV prevalence of 23%. Prevalence in STD clinics was 27%, 26% in family planning clinics, and 15% in primary care clinics. Prevalence by age group was: 14 to 19 years 35%; 20 to 29 years 29%; 30 to 39 years 13%; 40 to 49 years 11%; and 50 to 65 years 6%.3

Preliminary results from the sentinel surveillance project from 2003-2004 also report PCR-based HPV type-specific prevalence estimates for types 16 and 18. Overall prevalence of infection with HPV types 16 or 18 was 8%. Prevalence of HPV 16 or 18 by age group was: 16% in 14 to 19 year olds; 10% in 20 to 29 year olds; 3% in 30 to 39 year olds; 2% in 40 to 49 year olds and 1% in 50 to 65 year olds.4

National population-based data were also obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) identifying prevalence of both HR-HPV and low-risk HPV (LR-HPV, which is associated with development of anogenital warts) in the civilian, non-institutionalized female population of the U.S., 2003-2004 (Figure 43). The overall HPV prevalence including high- and low-risk types, was 26.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): 23.3-30.9) among U.S. females aged 14 to 59 years. HPV vaccine preventable types 6 or 11 (low-risk types) or 16 or 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants; HPV-6 was detected in 1.3% (95% CI: 0.8-2.3), HPV-11 in 0.1% (95% CI: 0.03-0.3), HPV-16 in 1.5% (95% CI: 0.9-2.6), and HPV-18 in 0.8% (95% CI: 0.4-1.5) of female participants.5

Data from the National Disease and Therapeutic Index (NDTI) suggest that genital warts (Figure 44) as measured by initial visits to physicians offices, may be increasing. The NHANES 1999-2004 survey years demonstrated that 5.6% (95% CI: 4.9-6.4) of sexually active 18-59 year olds self-reported a history of a genital wart diagnosis.6

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
For data on Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID), see the Special Focus Profile on Women and Infants.

Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV)
Case reporting data for genital herpes simplex virus are not available. Trend data are based on estimates of the initial office visits in physicians' office practices for these conditions from the National Disease and Therapeutic Index (NDTI) (Figure 45 and Table 42).

National trend data on the seroprevalence of HSV-2 among those aged 14 to 49 years from the NHANES survey years 1999-2004 were compared with survey years 1988-1994. Seroprevelance decreased from 21% (95% CI: 19.1-23.1) in 1988-1994 to 17.0% (95% CI: 15.8-18.3) in 1999-2004. When including data on blacks and whites from NHANES survey years 1976-1980, blacks had higher seroprevalence than whites for each survey period and age group7 (Figure 46). In 1999-2004, the overall percentage of survey participants who reported having been diagnosed with genital herpes was 3.8%.7

While HSV-2 seroprevalence is decreasing, most persons with HSV-2 have not been diagnosed. Increasing visits for genital herpes, as suggested by NDTI data, may indicate increased recognition of infection.

Trichomoniasis
Case reporting data are not available for trichomoniasis and trend data for this infection is limited to estimates of initial physician office visits from NDTI (Figure 47 and Table 42). NHANES data from 2001-2004 demonstrated an overall prevalence of 3.1% (95% CI: 2.3-4.3), with highest prevalence observed among blacks 13.3% (95% CI: 10.0-17.7).8

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/other.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/other-figs.htm


Personally i think these stats are wrong, HPV and Herpies are rated as the most prevelant in Australia as far as i know and i belive this would the case in the US. However these virus's are NOT reportable and poorly diognosed so acurate statistics are hard to come by.

Would you like to re-evaluate your comments?

 

[Bells]

Not all of them. Despite your morally narrow point of view, children do have sexual urges and do not need to be manipulated, coerced or induce to want to satisfy their own urges.

Children are old enough to consent to sex. They can feel good from it, they like it, and it does not harm them.

With other children. Not with adults.

It is perfectly normal for children to experiment with other children and to touch themselves. What isn't normal is for an adult to feel aroused at children and actually want to have sex with them.

Do you honestly think an 8 year old child (for example) isn't harmed by having sex with an adult? I mean obviously, you seem to think that children are fair game when it comes to sex. But think about it for a minute. What about babies? Toddlers? They are children too, aren't they? Toddlers often play with themselves.. it's normal for them to explore their bodies and it feels good to them. Does that mean that they are ready to have sex? Do you think an adult having sex with a toddler isn't sex abuse and that it's a pseudoscience? Don't you think that adults waiting to prey on a child's curiosity and natural urges is actually doing the child more harm than good? That instead of letting the child progress naturally and experiment at their own pace, they will find themselves going at the adult's pace. You don't think that would screw up their idea of sex?

Children are not old enough to consent to sex with adults. Getting drunk feels good. Does that mean children should be legally allowed to drink or do drugs? No.

Most people don't have HIV or AIDS. Only sex with someone who has AIDS is harmful.

Only sex with someone who has AIDS is harmful? What of other STD's? That's not harmful?

Most of the people involved in underage sex are family or friends. If friends or family did have a disease, they wouldn't give a child the disease.

How naive are you?

Do you honestly think that a person who has sex with a child is going to care if they pass on an STD to that child? Do you really think that someone with an STD and finds children sexually attractive and has sex with children will have the morals to want to protect that child from their STD?

 

[S.A.M.]

I think comparing alcohol consumption to sex is a spurious analogy. Alcohol consumption is not a biological urge.

 

[phlogistician]

This whole debate is a blight on Sciforums. There is no discussion to be had here. Ancient Regime is a sick fuck and the thread should be deleted. We should not entertain such a warped perspective.

 

[Enmos]

I think comparing alcohol consumption to sex is a spurious analogy. Alcohol consumption is not a biological urge.

Neither is sex for kids.

 

[Enmos]

Ancientregime, how would you feel if it turns out that your 50 year old neighbor has been having sex with 8 year olds ?
Do you have kids ?

 

[S.A.M.]

Neither is sex for kids.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZsQ_RG_K-B0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=childhood+sexuality

I think the role of social conditioning seems very important:

e.g.

Many people cannot imagine that everyone—babies, children, teens, adults, and the elderly—are sexual beings. Some believe that sexual activity is reserved for early and middle adulthood. Teens often feel that adults are too old for sexual intercourse. Sexuality, though, is much more than sexual intercourse and humans are sexual beings throughout life.

Sexuality in infants and toddlers—Children are sexual even before birth. Males can have erections while still in the uterus, and some boys are born with an erection. Infants touch and rub their genitals because it provides pleasure. Little boys and girls can experience orgasm from masturbation although boys will not ejaculate until puberty. By about age two, children know their own gender. They are aware of differences in the genitals of males and females and in how males and females urinate.

Sexuality in children ages three to seven—Preschool children are interested in everything about their world, including sexuality. They may practice urinating in different positions. They are highly affectionate and enjoy hugging other children and adults. They begin to be more social and may imitate adult social and sexual behaviors, such as holding hands and kissing. Many young children play "doctor" during this stage, looking at other children's genitals and showing theirs. This is normal curiosity. By age five or six, most children become more modest and private about dressing and bathing.

Children of this age are aware of marriage and understand living together, based on their family experience. They may role-play about being married or having a partner while they "play house." Most young children talk about marrying and/or living with a person they love when they get older. School-age children may play sexual games with friends of their same sex, touching each other's genitals and/or masturbating together. Most sex play at this age happens because of curiosity.

Sexuality in preadolescent youth ages eight to 12—Puberty, the time when the body matures, begins between the ages of nine and 12 for most children. Girls begin to grow breast buds and public hair as early as nine or 10. Boys' development of penis and testicles usually begins between 10 and 11. Children become more self-conscious about their bodies at this age and often feel uncomfortable undressing in front of others, even a same-sex parent.

Masturbation increases during these years. Preadolescent boys and girls do not usually have much sexual experience, but they often have many questions. They usually have heard about sexual intercourse, petting, oral sex, and anal sex, homosexuality, rape and incest, and they want to know more about all these things. The idea of actually having sexual intercourse, however, is unpleasant to most preadolescent boys and girls.

Same-gender sexual behavior is common at this age. Boys and girls tend to play with friends of the same gender and are likely to explore sexuality with them. Masturbating with one's same-gender friends and looking at or caressing each other's genitals is common among preadolescent boys and girls. Such same-gender sexual behavior is unrelated to a child's sexual orientation.

Some group dating occurs at this age. Preadolescents may attend parties that have guests of both genders, and they may dance and play kissing games. By age 12 or 13, some young adolescents may pair off and begin dating and/or "making out."

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/sexdevelop.htm

It would be interesting to see what happens in societies where shame and inhibition are not imposed on children.

 

[Enmos]

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZsQ_RG_K-B0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=childhood+sexuality

I think the role of social conditioning seems very important:

e.g.



It would be interesting to see what happens in societies where shame and inhibition are not imposed on children.

I said SEX, not touching.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Not all of them. Despite your morally narrow point of view, children do have sexual urges and do not need to be manipulated, coerced or induce to want to satisfy their own urges.

Children are old enough to consent to sex. They can feel good from it, they like it, and it does not harm them.



So you call yourself a child at 18? Isn't that what we were talking about?




Again, we were talking about children, confusing yourself again with a child.




You are wrong. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with any humans who consensually have sex. Your talking from a moral pulpit. Hallelujah! Praise ye be Jesus. Are you going to shake, quake, leap , jump, roll and bark next?



I'm in my late 30's, so I've been around the block a few times and traveled many times, so I haven't been stuck in a small little world where the outside doesn't exist. Ever met someone who's read a book you haven't? That's like me an you, You know nothing about the books I've read. I've had
lot of girlfriends that had it happen. Lost of friends that had it happen. The only abuse they felt was the fact it was taboo by their family or society. I had one friend who was raped repeatedly, and it was somepmr who people in the community would never expect it was. And btw, this rapist was the same age as the person they raped.



That's impossible, because victims only are raped. You leave out the children who love sex. You wouldn't understand, they don't hang out with people like you. You only want to imprison their friends and family. They can see people like you from a mile away. Your ideas are nightmares to their lives.

Not all of them. Despite your morally narrow point of view, children do have sexual urges and do not need to be manipulated, coerced or induce to want to satisfy their own urges.

Children are old enough to consent to sex. They can feel good from it, they like it, and it does not harm them.

They don't have sexual urges like adults do. They are merely curious about their body. They touch their genitals for the same reason they explore the rest of their body. They are curious, and too young to be aware that their undeveloped penis or vagina is any more a private part than the nose or ears.

So you call yourself a child at 18? Isn't that what we were talking about?

Learn some fucking reading comprehension. I did not describe myself as a child.

I'm in my late 30's, so I've been around the block a few times and traveled many times, so I haven't been stuck in a small little world where the outside doesn't exist. Ever met someone who's read a book you haven't? That's like me an you, You know nothing about the books I've read. I've had
lot of girlfriends that had it happen. Lost of friends that had it happen. The only abuse they felt was the fact it was taboo by their family or society. I had one friend who was raped repeatedly, and it was somepmr who people in the community would never expect it was. And btw, this rapist was the same age as the person they raped.

You sure about that? You sure you're not just superimposing your own views on them?

You are wrong. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with any humans who consensually have sex. Your talking from a moral pulpit. Hallelujah! Praise ye be Jesus. Are you going to shake, quake, leap , jump, roll and bark next?

IT IS NOT CONSENSUAL. THEY ARE TOO YOUNG TO CONSENT.

You leave out the children who love sex.

THEY DON'T EXIST.

Children do not love sex. Like I said - they play with their genitals out of exploration and curiosity, not because they're old enough to be horny.

 

[Bells]

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZsQ_RG_K-B0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=childhood+sexuality

I think the role of social conditioning seems very important:

e.g.



It would be interesting to see what happens in societies where shame and inhibition are not imposed on children.

That's seen as being normal behaviour.. children will explore their own bodies.. They do it even as babies. Hell, even in the womb. I remember an ultrasound at 36 weeks with my eldest and he was holding onto his willy.

What ancient regime is saying goes well beyond what is seen as normal behaviour and self discovery in children.

 

[Stryder]

If a "Child" consents to any act, it means nothing for they aren't an "Adult" and when they reach "Adulthood" they can pretty much change their entire reasoning behind anything they did as a "Child".

If they are coerced into some "Sexual" act as a Child, it could effect them in their Adult years, it could haunt them, torment them and degrade them as a person. In fact if they can prove that they were coerced as a minor and they can direct the law to the person responsible, it can still be seen as "Statutory Rape" even years later.

This is the reason that Children should be protected from such actions made towards them. Someone's sick sexual urge is no justification to force such cruel, demeaning, in human torture on them at that time or in that persons future. Anyone that believes otherwise really should seek mental help from Psychiatrists (That itself is not Debatable).