Reporting on STDs

As thoughlast week's report about 1 in 4 girls having contracted an STD was not startling enough, the New York Times last Thursday led with this as the title:

Sex Infection Found in Quarter of Teenage Girls

This characterization of young women conjures several different issues for me.

I am all for raising awareness about the potential threats of STD's, but I support fair and balanced coverage, not scare reporting. Using the term "infected" sounds like there has been an outbreak of birdflu and feeds into the hyped notion that some incurable disease is spreading that we are powerless against. We (by which I mean feminists) have known for some time that young women are at a high risk of HPV. That's why we've opposed cuts in funding for sex ed programs, abstinence-only programs and the obstacles that have made the HPV vaccine difficult for young women to obtain, especially poor women of color.

What I want to know is where is the study that shows how young women are getting these STDs? Why is the burden and spotlight only on young women? What are young men doing that is leading to "high risk" behaviors and leading to young women being "infected?" I think it is important to look at the risks for young women and educate and spread resources accordingly, but it is wrong and unhelpful to suggest that this is a problem only for young women.

I do believe the NYTimes was trying to do the right thing by attempting to inform the public, but without reframing the debate and making connections to larger policies that deny young women and women of color resources, it doesn't really do much good. There are so many assumptions about young women - and especially young women of color and their assumed sexual promiscuity - the news media has to do more to actually influence public opinion or inspire people to do something. Dismal stats just make us all feel helpless. Looking at racist and sexist policy and how that influences the behavior of young men and women to see where key interventions might be possible, might be a place to start.

One of the key issues here is that young women of color are rarely, if ever, on the front page of any newspaper. The press doesn't usually count the news affecting their lives as real news, so to only report about women of color when it relates to "sex infection" fuels nasty stereotypes in a media, that is already inundated with overly sexed images of women of color.

So then where do we go? HALF of the African American girls studied had contracted some form of STD. That is a staggering statistic and it is hard to blame such a clear discrepancy on personal behavior and choice. Abstinence-only policies, funding cuts and poor educational systems hit young black women the hardest. And they don't deserve it.

Comments (25)

1. Spot on Samhita- and STDs are a problem for everyone, not just young women.

   Posted by jro555 at 03/20/2008 @ 11:23am

2. "HALF of the African American girls studied had contracted some form of STD. That is a staggering statistic and it is hard to blame such a clear discrepancy on personal behavior and choice.

   What happened to the other half?

   Posted by ACook at 03/20/2008 @ 1:27pm

3. Posted by ACOOK 03/20/2008 @ 1:27pm:: I would imagine the other half didn't have any STDs- probably for a plethora of reasons.

   Posted by jro555 at 03/20/2008 @ 1:50pm

4. One way to reduce your chances of getting an STD is to stop sleeping around.

   Posted by KSP556 at 03/20/2008 @ 2:08pm

5. Posted by KSP556 03/20/2008 @ 2:08pm

   Wrong. You can reduce your chances of contracting an STD by using condoms, getting tested, requiring that your partner get tested, and by not engaging in high risk sexual behaviors.

   These are very effectice methods of reducing (your word) STD/STI risk.

   By your statement, one can assume that only people who sleep around get STDs and STIs, right?

   Posted by ldn at 03/20/2008 @ 2:36pm

6. Sorry, meant to type: one can assume that you believe.

   Posted by ldn at 03/20/2008 @ 2:38pm

7. Zero, I read the section of the article that you were referring to a few times and I honestly couldn't find any explicit (or implicit, for that matter) claims of victimhood or blame. Talking about bringing men's behaviors and choices into the picture does not automatically make the discussion one about victimhood or blame, but about shared responsibility. This is something that has long been absent in conversations related to women's sexuality and reproductive rights, where the burden of preventing anything from unplanned pregnancies to transmission of STIs falls squarely on the woman (assuming, of course, that we are talking about heterosexual relations--which tend to be the only ones that get talked about).

   This is an extremely important subject and one that must be covered, albeit in a way that does justice to young women, and young people in general. The lack of access to information about their own bodies that many youth have combines with the lack of adequate healthcare in low-income communities to create yet another tremendous, yet unrecognized, form of oppression for young women of color.

   Posted by joyfulspark at 03/20/2008 @ 2:41pm

8. Posted by ZERO 03/20/2008 @ 2:27pm :: I think what Samhita was trying to say there is that both women AND men should be held accountable. Also, a study like this one should also research young men and STDs too, shouldn't it? and report the findings side by side?? why the focus on just young women?

   Posted by jro555 at 03/20/2008 @ 3:22pm

9. Posted by KSP556 03/20/2008 @ 2:08pm:: you are right, that is ONE way of preventing STDs. LDN is also right- condoms and comprehensive sex ed also helps prevent STDs.

   Posted by jro555 at 03/20/2008 @ 3:23pm

10. Zero, what a relief to get through a whole article without running into such inflammatory phrases as "male-dominated" and "masculinist"! SM certainly gets an "A" for effort.

    Posted by KSP556 at 03/20/2008 @ 3:32pm

11. Posted by LDN 03/20/2008 @ 2:36pm

    I agree, but very often casual encounters occur spur of the moment, so the partners end up not getting tested. The more partners you have, the more you run the risk of catching a bug, be it a Staph bacterium or some type of virus (which condoms won't necessarily protect against: any sort of bodily contact - not just genital contact - can lead to the spread of something).

    Posted by KSP556 at 03/20/2008 @ 5:00pm

12. Posted by KSP556 03/20/2008 @ 5:00pm

    You are factually correct, of course. My problem with your original post was not with that but with the attitude that immediately bestows judgment on those who have STIs by implying that they are "sluts". Your first response was to assume promiscuity and assign blame.

    Think about it.

    Posted by ldn at 03/21/2008 @ 09:41am

13. "...it is hard to blame such a clear discrepancy on personal behavior and choice."

    Samhita, no, it isn't. To what lengths will we go to excuse people of every degree of personal responsibility? In plain English: if you catch an STD, it's your fault.

    Let's not blame "racism" or "sexism" for everything, ok? College is over.

    Posted by Beausoleil at 03/21/2008 @ 10:31am

14. Posted by LDN 03/21/2008 @ 09:41am

    I know exactly what you mean.

    Still I must wonder which is the more belittling attitude: one which bluntly gets those who are infected to reflect on their sexual behavior and values, or one which deems any judgment of the self to be officious and intolerant.

    Is a culture which rewards a pricy 20-something prostitute with million-dollar tell-all book offers and record deals morally superior to one which tells her that what she did is "wrong"?

    Think about it.

    Posted by KSP556 at 03/21/2008 @ 10:41am

15. Posted by KSP556 03/21/2008 @ 10:41am

    You speak in extremes. Passing judgment on someone else is entirely different from bluntly asking one to analyze their actions and the consequences of their actions.

    The problem is the assumptions made about someone with STIs or STDs. There are many scenarios that can lead to transmission: rape, incest, unfaithful partners or spouses, partners or spouses who don't have symptoms, etc. Promiscuity is only one scenario. In any instance, judgment is the wrong approach to take when you're dealing with an already delicate situation.

    Besides, my experience with teens has been that if they feel guilty about something, they sure as hell aren't going to tell anyone about it. Guilt combined with fear leads to people who don't get tested and as a result, don't get treated.

    Posted by ldn at 03/21/2008 @ 2:50pm

16. Posted by LDN 03/21/2008 @ 2:50pm

    A young woman or man who has contracted an STD needs emotional support and treatment, not moral lectures. Agreed. Home life should be open, compassionate, and intelligent, not repressive and harsh.

    Let's go back to what we said:

    I: One way to reduce your chances of getting an STD is to stop sleeping around.

    You: My problem with your original post was...with the attitude that immediately bestows judgment on those who have STIs by implying that they are "sluts". Your first response was to assume promiscuity and assign blame.

    I: Still I must wonder which is the more belittling attitude: one which bluntly gets those who are infected to reflect on their sexual behavior and values, or one which deems any judgment of the self to be officious and intolerant.

    My point - which you missed - is that our culture makes no demands on the individual, be they civic, moral, spiritual, or intellectual. If a 13-year-old has multiple sex partners, our culture says that's perfectly okay; what's NOT okay is questioning the wisdom of such behavior, or the society out of which such behavior arises.

    Any reflection or critical judgment is considered inappropriate, as though someone were meddling. The moral invocation, not the behavior at which it is directed, is thought to be bad.

    Posted by KSP556 at 03/21/2008 @ 4:25pm

17. Posted by KSP556 03/21/2008 @ 4:25pm

    No, I didn't miss your point. I specifically stated that asking someone bluntly to analyze their actions and the consequences of said actions (aka reflection on the choices an individual has made) was different than passing judgment (aka automatically implying that promiscuity was the only reason for infection).

    You: our culture makes no demands on the individual, be they civic, moral, spiritual, or intellectual. If a 13-year-old has multiple sex partners, our culture says that's perfectly okay; what's NOT okay is questioning the wisdom of such behavior, or the society out of which such behavior arises.

    Who says such behavior is perfectly ok? I certainly don't know anyone who would contend this, nor did I read anything in SM's article that supports this view. What I did read indicated that, in addition to individual responsibility issues that must be addressed, there are socioeconomic factors that influence such behaviors. One cannot effectively address the problem without addressing both sides of the issue.

    Posted by louky at 03/21/2008 @ 6:49pm

18. When it comes to sensitive issues it seems emotions always transcend rationality.

    Could not the reason young men have not been mentioned be because young men usually have less sex at a younger age and when they have it have it with people their own age (making std transmission rare)? Sound radical I heard it on NPR. All past studies show women tend to have sex with older men. Further these older men who prey on young women are few in number and have multiple sex partners. So if you are looking for someone to blame other than these promiscuous teenage girls blame a few pathetic guys in their 20s.

    Posted by gordon.gekko at 03/21/2008 @ 8:11pm

19. One way to reduce your chances of getting an STD is to stop sleeping around.

    Posted by KSP556 03/20/2008 @ 2:08pm

    First of all, you may do well to remember that your so-called "one way" does NOT work by itself. Teenage pregnancies and STDs are drastically reduced when there is a comprehensive sex ed program (which includes birth control and safe sex as well as abstinence) in place. Putting the focus on abstinence only is simply unrealistic and doesn't work.

    Secondly, who's to say that these women were "sleeping around"? For all we know, a considerable number of them may have had one sexual partner, and that was enough to get them infected.

    Posted by Pier at 03/22/2008 @ 09:14am

20. Well, I'm sure our resident right-wingers will tell us that despite these numbers the abstinence-only "Surge" is still working and to go back to normal, sane sex ed would be "cutting and running" on the War on Sex!

    Posted by Mask at 03/23/2008 @ 8:13pm

21. I read the section of the article that you were referring to a few times and I honestly couldn't find any explicit (or implicit, for that matter) claims of victimhood or blame

    i can help you with that. she said:

    "What are young men doing that is leading to "high risk" behaviors and leading to young women being "infected?"

    seems pretty clear to me.

    Posted by darladoon at 03/24/2008 @ 12:56am

22. the more sex we have, the happier we are.

    period. end of story.

    so, how do we curtail the rise in STDs?

    simple.

    talk about sex

    and

    give away as many condoms as possible

    Posted by darladoon at 03/24/2008 @ 12:58am

23. Obama's report on STD's...

    white people infected blacks with AIDS.

    Geraldine Ferraro's comments are as bad Jeremiah Wright's, and she gave Wright herpes.

    Sincerely, Typical White Person.

    Posted by honkyjesus at 03/25/2008 @ 12:12pm

24. Posted by HONKYJESUS 03/25/2008 @ 12:12pm

    That you, FRANK?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 03/25/2008 @ 12:45pm

25. Wonderful article. I actually never thought about why there was no study about STI rates among young men before reading this.

    Also, I'd like to point out that this is essentially a health issue. Idk why the right is making it out to be a moral issue. Sex ed is basically hygiene ed. Telling kids that the best way to not get an STD is to not have sex is like telling kids that the only way not to get a cold would be to live in a bubble all your life.

    STUPID.

    Posted by freeminded at 03/26/2008 @ 6:18pm