For those under 25: How much do you know about sexually transmitted infections

[Chip]

This question has come up on some other discussion boards where I participate (with a typically older crowd, 20s to 40s), and I thought it would be interesting (and perhaps educational) to discuss here.

I am curious what level of knowledge you have about the more serious sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV/AIDS, hepatitis-C, hepatitis-B, genital warts and herpes, as well as the less serious (i.e., more easily treated/cured) ones such as chlymidia, syphillis, gonorrhea.

My questions

-- Did whatever sex education you received talk about the various STIs in detail?

-- Did they explain that hep-C and HIV are almost equally serious in terms of difficulty to treat, lifespan implications, etc.?

-- Did they explain how testing for HIV (and, usually, hep-C) works and why a negative (nonreactive) test result does NOT necessarily mean that the person in question does not have HIV?

-- Did they discuss which sex acts (oral, anal, vaginal, various combinations thereof) are highest and lowest risk for transmission of STIs?

-- If you did not learn about STIs from a sex education class, would you say you have a good understanding of the above issues, and if so, where did you get it from?

I'm asking because my own experience in talking to people of all ages, but particularly people under 25, is that many of them really have no idea about a lot of these issues, which I consider really crucial to making decisions about having sexual activity with others.

Thanks!

Easily answered questions from my personal experience,

1-4. No

5. I do think I have a great understanding for all of the above issues, and though STIs weren't really taught in my school (they were only named, aside from a little explanation of HIV/AIDS) I think that a lot of my classmates would know about them from a programme that was on TV here called "The Sex Education Show" which was highly informative as well as being interesting to watch, especially on the issue of STIs. I'd say I understand the other issues purely by reading about them myself, not because of any organised education.

[partietraumatic]

1)Nope it was very inadequate. From what i remember they barely touched on STIs,it was more about using a condom,but not about specific STIs.

2)Hell no,this is in fact the first time ive encountered that information. I have been under the impression HIV is much more serious...

3)Again thats news to me. I had no idea that was the case!

4)Umm no i don't think so

5)Well from my answers to those questions it seems i clearly dont have a good understanding,everything i do know has just come from things ive picked up myself over time.

Wow on reflection my sex ed was nowhere near what it should've been. I had one day of sex ed when i was 15/16 i think,personally i think whilst obviously with the age of consent being 16 sex ed needs to be undertaken before that age,its the case that many people at that age are still imature and spent the whole time laughing at it and treating it as a joke. I think it would be much more effective if you had continued classes over your last 3 years of school from 15-18 as i believe we would all take on the information much better that way.

But i dunno what other peopls ed was like,it could just be that my school had very poor provision on that front!

[Ben]

Originally Posted by calchip

-- Did whatever sex education you received talk about the various STIs in detail?

In enough detail to scare us.

Originally Posted by calchip

-- Did they explain that hep-C and HIV are almost equally serious in terms of difficulty to treat, lifespan implications, etc.?

No. They didn't want to scare us with details like that.

Originally Posted by calchip

-- Did they explain how testing for HIV (and, usually, hep-C) works and why a negative (nonreactive) test result does NOT necessarily mean that the person in question does not have HIV?

No.

Originally Posted by calchip

-- Did they discuss which sex acts (oral, anal, vaginal, various combinations thereof) are highest and lowest risk for transmission of STIs?

Yes they said you can get an STD from any sexual act but some are more dangerous than others.

Originally Posted by calchip

-- If you did not learn about STIs from a sex education class, would you say you have a good understanding of the above issues, and if so, where did you get it from?

Most knowledge of STDs other than the basics have come from the internet. But I know enough I think. I had a lot of Sexual Education classes from age 8 till 15 but they mainly focused on pregnancy and safe sax. They never went into gory details with STDs, just told us to be careful and gave us lessons in how to put a condom on and things like that.

[kettleoffish]

-- Did whatever sex education you received talk about the various STIs in detail?

nope. They didn't even mention STIs once

-- Did they explain that hep-C and HIV are almost equally serious in terms of difficulty to treat, lifespan implications, etc.?

see 1

-- Did they explain how testing for HIV (and, usually, hep-C) works and why a negative (nonreactive) test result does NOT necessarily mean that the person in question does not have HIV?

see 1

-- Did they discuss which sex acts (oral, anal, vaginal, various combinations thereof) are highest and lowest risk for transmission of STIs?

see 1

-- If you did not learn about STIs from a sex education class, would you say you have a good understanding of the above issues, and if so, where did you get it from?

I do have a good understanding of STIs, I gained this knowledge from a mixture between the Internet, and an HIV/AIDS peer educator course I took a while ago in preperation for a trip to Malawi. I'd say I probably know more about HIV/AIDS than most people now, other STIs I am a little sketchy on details, but I know how to avoid transmission, which is the important bit.

[Shevanel]

Yep to all of them. And I went to a Private Catholic High School. that's a bit interesting don't ya think? :P

[Just Adam]

know of them know i dont want them know to do what i can to not get them ....

i was taught about them along the lines of if you get them your screwed which never appeals to me.

do they worry me yes they scare the hell out of me but whats new.
this a real feel good thread

[Fiorino]

-- Did whatever sex education you received talk about the various STIs in detail?
Yes
-- Did they explain that hep-C and HIV are almost equally serious in terms of difficulty to treat, lifespan implications, etc.?
Not really
-- Did they explain how testing for HIV (and, usually, hep-C) works and why a negative (nonreactive) test result does NOT necessarily mean that the person in question does not have HIV?
No
-- Did they discuss which sex acts (oral, anal, vaginal, various combinations thereof) are highest and lowest risk for transmission of STIs?
Yes
-- If you did not learn about STIs from a sex education class, would you say you have a good understanding of the above issues, and if so, where did you get it from?
Yes, mostly from the internet, wikipedia and various government health sites. I think there's a quiz somewhere about STI knowledge or "are you at risk".

[sdc91]

My sex ed was abstinence only, I'm pretty sure... the teacher talked about STDs for a week and mentioned something about putting on a condom (but not instructions on how to).

Go Texas.

[silas99]

I think from all the responses above there is a large amount of evidence that sex education at school about STDs is very poor. I have to say that my knowledge comes from my university degree and not my school days.

[NkyJ]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes

[Greggers]

1 - 4: No.

5. Yes, i did learn about them via TV, Movies, other forms of media, and the odd thing i picked up from convos with people.

My schools "Sex Ed" was literally ONE hour in grade 8 were the boys and girls were split up and had a teacher teach each group about there own body parts. ("This is a penis. This is what a penis does.") It didnt help at all, because we didnt learn anything about sex itself, safe sex, STI's, or anything else we needed to know. It was up to parents or TV to teach us everything else. Quite pathetic. But i guess thats what i get for going to a christian school huh...

[Jack2009]

I only had like one week learning about sex education... but it's only about the body parts and not everything else.

I am afraid of them like the end of the world...

[Rosina]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Nope
4) Yes

We got a hell of a lot of Sex Ed, starting as basics at around eight and then getting more and more detailed and more frequent the older we got. The third question caught me out though, I know how HIV is tested for but I wasn't aware that a negative test wasn't always a clean bill of health; could you explain why or link some pages, it'll be worth reading.

1. Did whatever sex education you received talk about the various STIs in detail?

Indeed, they did. I will never EVER forget "Cottage-Cheese Dick". I personally don't know the symptoms offhand, but I do know what it is NOT supposed to be like. From that, I've learned to extrapolate that if you have warts covering your hoohah, I'm not going anywhere near you. As for transmission, I know that some diseases are spread by contact (HPV, herpes), some by fluid exchange (pretty much all of them), and some can even infect your throat (clamydia and gonorrhea being prime examples of such). Some can be treated with antibiotics and some will be with you forever.

2. Did they explain that hep-C and HIV are almost equally serious in terms of difficulty to treat, lifespan implications, etc.?
No. But I learned that from my mother who is a lab technician. She taught me the differences between Hep A, B and C. I personally don't plan on drinking dirty water, having unprotected sex or sharing needles (or working in a hospital for that matter) so I figure I'm mostly in the clear.


3. Did they explain how testing for HIV (and, usually, hep-C) works and why a negative (nonreactive) test result does NOT necessarily mean that the person in question does not have HIV?

Something about a three to six month window where a virus can be dormant and produce a false negative.

4. Did they discuss which sex acts (oral, anal, vaginal, various combinations thereof) are highest and lowest risk for transmission of STIs?

Indeed. It all depends on the sex act and which STI is likely to be contracted.

5. If you did not learn about STIs from a sex education class, would you say you have a good understanding of the above issues, and if so, where did you get it from?

My sex education classes were mostly in grade school as my highschool was just beginning to implement them when I arrived. So, I'm not as well educated as I would like to be, but I figure I know enough to get by without contracting anything. I gotta say though, as a woman who digs women, safe sex with women is just awkward. Seriously. Dental dams are just weird.

I've learned most of what I know by myself or through my mother's lectures.

[Chip]

Bump... looking for more input...

[Meropspusillus]

Originally Posted by calchip

My questions

-- Did whatever sex education you received talk about the various STIs in detail?

Not really that much.

Originally Posted by calchip

-- Did they explain that hep-C and HIV are almost equally serious in terms of difficulty to treat, lifespan implications, etc.?

I thought it was Hep B , but I knew that one of the hepatitises was super deadly.

Originally Posted by calchip

-- Did they explain how testing for HIV (and, usually, hep-C) works and why a negative (nonreactive) test result does NOT necessarily mean that the person in question does not have HIV?

Yepyep

Originally Posted by calchip

-- Did they discuss which sex acts (oral, anal, vaginal, various combinations thereof) are highest and lowest risk for transmission of STIs?

Yepyep

Originally Posted by calchip

-- If you did not learn about STIs from a sex education class, would you say you have a good understanding of the above issues, and if so, where did you get it from?

I learned about some of it on my own, not sure where I picked it up, but a variety of different places. I learned about the Hepatitis thing because when I got my vaccine, I pestered the doctor and my mother about what it was and what all the different types are.

[joeyconnick]

Originally Posted by Numfarh

3. Did they explain how testing for HIV (and, usually, hep-C) works and why a negative (nonreactive) test result does NOT necessarily mean that the person in question does not have HIV?

Something about a three to six month window where a virus can be dormant and produce a false negative.

If I recall correctly, the window is generally considered 3 months these days, and is a result of the common HIV test testing for a HIV antibody, rather than for the virus itself. Tests which actually look for the virus itself are a lot more commonly available now (I'm pretty sure all donated blood is screened this way), as are "rapid" tests where you don't have to wait for bloodwork to get done to get your results (you get the results in a few minutes, not--like it used to be--two weeks).

Originally Posted by joeyconnick

Something about a three to six month window where a virus can be dormant and produce a false negative.

If I recall correctly, the window is generally considered 3 months these days, and is a result of the common HIV test testing for a HIV antibody, rather than for the virus itself. Tests which actually look for the virus itself are a lot more commonly available now (I'm pretty sure all donated blood is screened this way), as are "rapid" tests where you don't have to wait for bloodwork to get done to get your results (you get the results in a few minutes, not--like it used to be--two weeks).[/QUOTE]

Google to the rescue!

The standard HIV test looks for antibodies in a person's blood. When HIV (which is a virus) enters a person's body, special proteins are produced. These are called antibodies. Antibodies are the body's response to an infection. So if a person has antibodies to HIV in their blood, it means they have been infected with HIV. There are only two exceptions to this rule. Firstly, babies born to positive mothers retain their mother's antibodies for up to 18 months, which means they may test positive on an HIV antibody test, even if they are actually HIV negative. This is why babies born to positive mothers may receive a PCR test after birth. Secondly, some people who have taken part in HIV vaccine trials may have HIV antibodies even if they are not infected with the virus.

Some test centres may recommend testing again at 6 months if you're deemed to be at particularly high risk of infection.
Most people develop detectable HIV antibodies within 6 to 12 weeks of infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months. It is exceedingly unlikely that someone would take longer than 6 months to develop antibodies.

Getting tested earlier than 3 months may result in an unclear test result, as an infected person may not yet have developed antibodies to HIV. The time between infection and the development of antibodies is called the window period. During the window period people infected with HIV will not yet have antibodies in their blood that can be detected by an HIV test. However, the person may already have high levels of HIV in their blood, sexual fluids or breast milk. Someone can transmit HIV to another person during the window period even though they do not test positive on an antibody test.

And apparently the testing methods are antibody testing, antigen testing and PCR testing. It seems like the antigen (NAT specifically) has an even smaller window period (about 12 days) according to this Wikipedia article.

[Chip]

This would be a great topic for discussion, since I think it's one of the most underdiscussed and misunderstood issues with HIV education, but can I respectfully suggest that we start another thread to do so?

I am trying to see if my gut instinct about what knowledge people have and where they got it is correct