Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Why parents must talk to their teens about oral sex

Oral Sex Leads to Intercourse Among Teens, Study Suggests

By Wynne Parry, LiveScience Senior Writer

posted: 01 November 2010 04:04 pm ET

A "birds and the bees" talk with your kids isn't complete without a discussion of oral sex, according to a new study that found a connection between oral sex and old-fashioned intercourse.

The three-year survey found that teens who had oral sex by the end of ninth grade were at the highest risk of having sexual intercourse during high school. These teens had a 25-percent chance of having intercourse by the end of ninth grade and a 50-percent chance by the end of 11th grade.

Meanwhile, teenagers who did not have oral sex until the end of 11th grade had only a 16-percent chance of having intercourse by the end of that school year.

The survey also found that most sexually active teenagers will start having oral sex and intercourse within the same six-month period.

Health care providers, parents and educators should directly address oral sex and its risks with teens, according to study researcher Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, a professor of pediatrics at University of California, San Francisco.

"I see most of the health policies out there and guidelines for preventive services talking about sex generally, but they do not specify oral sex. That is an important distinction because teens don't consider oral sex to be sex, and many are not aware of the risks involved," Halpern-Felsher said.

"Our study demonstrates that through its relationship with intercourse, oral sex contributes to the total risk associated with sexual activity among teens, including sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy," said Anna Song, also a study researcher and an assistant professor of psychological sciences at the University of California, Merced.

The researchers followed more than 600 students at two northern California high schools from the ninth grade through the end of 11th grade. The study is published online by the journal, Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, and it will also appear in the March 2011 print issue.

About 4 in 10 never–married U.S. teenagers ages 15–19 have had sexual intercourse at least once, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report released in June. [42% of U.S. Teens Have Had Sex]

Risky sexual behavior among teens was also reported in a study of more than 7,000 New York City adolescents published online Oct. 25 in the Journal of Pediatrics. Nearly 9 percent of females and nearly 4 percent of males had both male and female sex partners, the research found. And these teens with both-sex partners indicated a marked prevalence of dating violence and forced sex, along with sexual behaviors that could put them at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, the researchers reported.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Nobel Prize Awarded to Developer of In Vitro Technique

Pioneer of in Vitro Fertilization Wins Nobel Prize

The Nobel prize in physiology or medicine has been awarded this year to Robert G. Edwards, an English biologist who with a physician colleague, Dr. Patrick Steptoe, developed the in vitro fertilization procedure for treating human infertility.

Alastair Grant/Associated Press
Enlarge This Image
Central Press/Hulton Archive, via Getty Images

Robert G. Edwards, right, and Dr. Patrick Steptoe, in 1979. The two developed the in vitro fertilization procedure, facing much opposition on ethical and religious grounds.

Ralf Hirschberger/DPA, via European Pressphoto Agency

A human egg cell being injected for demonstration purposes at a laboratory in Dresden, Germany, in 2009.

Since the birth of the first test tube baby, Louise Brown, on July 25, 1978, some four million babies worldwide have been conceived by mixing eggs and sperm outside the body and returning the embryo to the womb to resume the normal development. The procedure overcomes many previously untreatable causes of infertility and is used in 3 percent of all live births in developed countries.

Advances in human reproductive technology arouse people’s deepest concerns and often go through a cycle, first of outrage and charges of playing God, then of acceptance. In vitro fertilization proved no exception. “We know that I.V.F. was a great leap because Edwards and Steptoe were immediately attacked by an unlikely trinity — the press, the pope, and prominent Nobel laureates,” said the biochemist Joseph Goldstein in presenting the Lasker Award to Dr. Edwards in 2001.

Research with human embryonic stem cells, made possible by Dr. Edwards’s development of in vitro fertilization, has evoked a similar outcry, but so far there are no offsetting practical benefits like the birth of healthy babies to eager parents. Because of the difficulty of stem cell research, such benefits may not be seen for many years, if ever.

Dr. Edwards, a physiologist who spent much of his career at Cambridge University in England, devoted more than 20 years to solving a series of problems in getting eggs and sperm to mature and unite successfully outside the body. His colleague, Dr. Steptoe, was a gynecologist and pioneer of laparoscopic surgery, the method he used to extract eggs from the prospective mother.

Dr. Steptoe, who presumably would otherwise have shared the prize, died in 1988 (the Nobel prize is not awarded posthumously). Dr. Edwards, 85, has retired as head of research from the Bourn Hall Clinic in Cambridge, which he and Dr. Steptoe founded as one of the world’s first centers for in vitro fertilization.

Because of health issues, Dr. Edwards himself was not available to reflect on his research career or the four million children alive because of his achievement. “Unfortunately he is not in a position to understand the honor he has received today,” said Dr. Michael Macnamee, director of the Bourn Hall clinic and a longtime colleague of Dr. Edwards. “He remembers the past very well, but not the present.” The deliberations of the prize-giving committee at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden are confidential, and it is unclear why it took so long to acknowledge Dr. Edwards’s achievement.

The Swedish committee is believed to avoid controversial people and issues. The ethical objections to in vitro fertilization may have been one reason for the long delay. Scientists speculated that Dr. Edwards’s political views — he has been a committed socialist — may have been another.

The committee routinely ignores the stipulation in Alfred Nobel’s will that the prize should be awarded for a discovery made the preceding year, because it takes longer than that to evaluate most scientific claims, but delays of 30 years or more are unusual. The Lasker Foundation in New York, whose jurors often anticipate the Nobel prize committee, awarded Dr. Edwards its prize nine years ago, though it, too, failed to act in time to honor Dr. Steptoe.

Though in vitro fertilization is now widely accepted, the birth of the first test tube baby was greeted with intense concern that the moral order was being subverted by unnatural intervention in the mysterious process of creating a human being. Dr. Edwards was well aware of the ethical issues raised by his research and took the lead in addressing them.

The objections gradually died away — except on the part of the Roman Catholic Church — as it became clear that the babies born by in vitro fertilization were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family. Long-term follow-ups have confirmed the essential safety of the technique.

Dr. Edwards’s research proved too controversial for the Medical Research Council, a government funding agency that is the British equivalent of the National Institutes of Health. In 1971 the council rejected an application from Dr. Edwards and Dr. Steptoe to work on in vitro fertilization, but they were able to continue with private funds.

Both Dr. Edwards and Dr. Steptoe had to endure an unremitting barrage of criticism while developing their technique. Dr. Steptoe “faced immense clinical criticism over his laparoscopy, even being isolated at clinical meetings in London,” Dr. Edwards wrote in the journal Nature Medicine in 2001 after receiving the Lasker award. “Ethicists decried us, forecasting abnormal babies, misleading the infertile and misrepresenting our work as really acquiring human embryos for research.”

Dr. Edwards fought back, forming alliances with ethicists in the Church of England and filing libel actions — eight in one day — against his critics. “I won them all, but the work and worry restricted research for several years,” he wrote.

Even after the birth of Louise Brown, the government refused to support his work, which was delayed for two and a half years, Dr. Edwards wrote, until he secured private funds. “There was at one time a possibility that Steptoe and Edwards would emigrate to the United States,” said Dr. Macnamee.

In parallel with defending his work in public, Dr. Edwards had to surmount one daunting problem after another in his laboratory. It sounds easy — mix eggs and sperm in a Petri dish and let nature do the rest. But the opposite is the case.

At the outset of his research, Dr. Edwards wasted two years trying to get eggs to mature outside the body, based on a report that human eggs matured in 12 hours. Eventually he learned that at least 25 hours is required.

Needing a reliable supply of human eggs, he approached Dr. Steptoe at the Oldham and District General Hospital because of his expertise at retrieving unfertilized eggs from the ovary through minute incisions in the patient’s skin. The two agreed to work as equals, to halt their work if danger emerged to patients or children and to ignore all religious and political criticism they deemed frivolous. The partnership lasted 20 years, until Dr. Steptoe’s death.

The two began transferring fertilized eggs to the womb in 1972, assuming that the rate of implantation would be as high as with farm animals. Their hopes were dashed. At first, the hormones given the mother to induce ovulation interfered with the growth of the embryo. Drs. Edwards and Steptoe then injected mothers with extra hormones, but these turned out to induce abortions.

They persisted through more than 40 embryo transfers before obtaining their first pregnancy. Unfortunately it was ectopic and had to be aborted. Louise Brown was born from the second pregnancy.

“It required grit and determination to keep going,” Dr. Macnamee said of his colleague. “But he had the conviction of his research work and he wanted to see it delivered to the people who needed it.”

Despite the ethical objections leveled at his work — some of which persist today, over the disposal of unused embryos and the high risk of multiple births — Dr. Edwards was nonetheless allowed to develop the technique over many years. “It would be very difficult to develop in vitro fertilization now because the ethical committees would have stopped his research,” Dr. Macnamee said.

The ability to fertilize eggs in a dish made possible several other significant advances in reproductive technology, such as pre-implantation diagnosis of genetic diseases and the culturing of embryonic stem cells.

Dr. Edwards was keenly interested in human embryonic stem cells and started work toward developing them in the 1980s. He published an article in Science in 1984 reporting the culture of human blastocysts, the pre-implantation embryos from which stem cells are derived. But he discontinued the work because of the controversy it aroused in England.

“It was a very touchy subject in the early 1980s. Bob was continually involved in lawsuits,” said Kay Elder, a colleague at the Bourn Hall Clinic. Human embryonic stem cells were later derived by James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin in 1998.

Friday, September 3, 2010

Today's Quote, in honour of Nelson, BC's Pride Weekend

"Most frequently coming out involves choices about how to handle moments of ordinary, daily conversation" (Magee and Miller, 1995). Furthermore, coming out offers gay [or minor-attracted] people the possibility of integrating a wider range of previously split-off affects, not just their sexual feelings (Drescher et al., 2003). Greater ease in expressing themselves, both to themselves and to others, can lead to an enormous enrichment of their work and relationships. To many, such activities constitute a reasonable definition of mental health.

Coming out is extraordinarily risky for minor-attracted people, so the above implies it is an enormous task for minor-attracted people to be mentally healthy. This is why making mental health services available to them is so crucial, and why the current unavailability of services is so harmful.

Richard Kramer, Director of Operations
B4U-ACT, Inc.
Westminster, MD
www.b4uact.org

Monday, July 5, 2010

Lesbians' kids rank highest in social functionality--study

Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests

By Madison Park, CNN
June 7, 2010 6:55 a.m. EDT
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Study finds children of lesbians are well-adjusted, have fewer behavioral problems than peers
  • Commonly used Child Behavior Checklist measured children's behavioral, social problems
  • Research funded by gay, lesbian advocacy groups; critics question validity
RELATED TOPICS

(CNN) -- A nearly 25-year study concluded that children raised in lesbian households were psychologically well-adjusted and had fewer behavioral problems than their peers.

The study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, followed 78 lesbian couples who conceived through sperm donations and assessed their children's well-being through a series of questionnaires and interviews.

Funding for the research came from several lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender advocacy groups, such as the Gill Foundation and the Lesbian Health Fund from the Gay Lesbian Medical Association.

Dr. Nanette Gartrell, the author of the study, wrote that the "funding sources played no role in the design or conduct of the study."

"My personal investment is in doing reputable research," said Gartrell. "This is a straightforward statistical analysis. It will stand and it has withstood very rigorous peer review by the people who make the decision whether or not to publish it."

Gay parenting remains a controversial issue, with debates about topics including the children's psychological adjustment, their parents' sexual orientation and adoption restrictions.

Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, a group that supports biblical values, questioned the legitimacy of the findings from a study funded by gay advocacy groups.

"That proves the prejudice and bias of the study," she said. "This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome -- to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household."

Gartrell started the study in 1986. She recruited subjects through announcements in bookstores, lesbian events and newspapers throughout metro Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco, California, and Washington.

The mothers were interviewed during pregnancy or the insemination process, and additionally when the children were 2, 5, 10 and 17 years old. Those children are now 18 to 23 years old.

They were interviewed four times as they matured and also completed an online questionnaire at age 17, focusing on their psychological adjustment, peer and family relationships and academic progress.

To assess their well-being, Gartrell used the Child Behavior Checklist, a commonly used standard to measure children's behavioral and social problems, such as anxiety, depression, aggressive behavior and social competence.

The answers were coded into a computer and then analyzed. This data was compared with data from children of nonlesbian families.

The results surprised Gartrell.

"I would have anticipated the kids would be doing as well as the normative sample," she said. "I didn't expect better."

Children from lesbian families rated higher in social, academic and total competence. They also showed lower rates in social, rule-breaking, aggressive problem behavior.

The involvement of mothers may be a contributing factor, in addition to the fact that the pregnancies were planned, Gartrell said.

Tell iReport: Growing up with gay parents

The children "didn't arrive by accident," she said. "The mothers were older... they were waiting for an opportunity to have children and age brings maturity and better parenting."

This also could have occurred because "growing up in households with less power assertion and more parental involvement has been shown to be associated with healthier psychological adjustment," Gartrell wrote in the study.

Some of the teenagers reported being stigmatized by peers because of their parents' sexuality. Researchers compared the figures in terms of the psychological adjustment between children who had experienced stigma versus those who did not.

"We found no differences," Gartrell said. "That leads us to asking why and how are young people managing discrimination? That will be the topic of future papers. We'll look into what the ingredients are to allow them to cope despite adversity."

Gartrell studied only lesbian families, because circumstances surrounding gay male families are different. Gay men becoming fathers is newer in comparison with lesbians, because their options have been limited to adoption or surrogacy. Lesbians often conceive through donor insemination.

"This study shows that the 17-year-old adolescents who have been reared by lesbian families are psychologically happy and high functioning," said Gartrell, a Williams distinguished scholar at the UCLA School of Law. Restrictions of child custody and reproductive technologies based on sexual orientation are not justified, she said.

Wright questioned the objectivity of Gartrell's research, saying the author can "cherry pick people who are involved and the info they release."

"In essence, this study claims to purport that children do better when raised by lesbians," she said.

Studies have shown that children thrive having both a mother and a father, Wright said.

"You have to be a little suspicious of any study that says children being raised by same-sex couples do better or have superior outcomes to children raised with a mother and father," she said. "It just defies common sense and reality."

New Gallop poll on attitude shifts towards gays

Monday, July 05, 2010 Updated 08:00 AM EST

May 25, 2010

Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold

Increased acceptance by men driving the change

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ - Americans' support for the moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations crossed the symbolic 50% threshold in 2010. At the same time, the percentage calling these relations "morally wrong" dropped to 43%, the lowest in Gallup's decade-long trend.

2001-2010 Trend: Perceived Moral  Acceptability of Gay/Lesbian Relations

Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, documents a gradual increase in public acceptance of gay relations since about 2006. However, the change is seen almost exclusively among men, and particularly men younger than 50.

Percentage Calling Gay/Lesbian Relations  Morally Acceptable, by Gender

Additionally, Gallup finds greater movement toward acceptance among independents and Democrats than among Republicans, and a big jump in acceptance among moderates. Liberals were already widely accepting of gay relations in 2006, and have remained that way, while conservatives' acceptance continues to run low.

Notably, there has been a 16-point jump in acceptance among Catholics, nearly three times the increase seen among Protestants. Acceptance among Americans with no religious identity has expanded as well.

Percentage Calling Gay/Lesbian Relations  Morally Acceptable, by Politics, Religion

The same May 3-6 Gallup poll finds the slight majority of Americans still against legalizing gay marriage; however, at 53%, the extent of that opposition is down slightly this year.

Acceptance for the legality of gay and lesbian relations has varied over the past decade, but, at 58% today, it is near the highest Gallup has measured (60% in 2003).

1977-2010 Trend: Legality of Gay/Lesbian  Relations

Americans remain closely divided over the factors contributing to being gay. Currently, 37% say being gay is due to upbringing and environment while 36% say it is a trait one is born with.

The division on this question has been the norm for most of the past decade, although the plurality response has fluctuated. Longer term, however, there has been a major change in Americans' views on this question, with far fewer today than in the 1970s and 1980s believing that being gay or lesbian is the result of upbringing and other life experiences.

Perceived Factors in Being Gay or Lesbian

Bottom Line

There is a gradual cultural shift under way in Americans' views toward gay individuals and gay rights. While public attitudes haven't moved consistently in gays' and lesbians' favor every year, the general trend is clearly in that direction. This year, the shift is apparent in a record-high level of the public seeing gay and lesbian relations as morally acceptable. Meanwhile, support for legalizing gay marriage, and for the legality of gay and lesbian relations more generally, is near record highs.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,029 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 3-6, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Iceland legalizes gay marriage...and PM signs up!

Iceland Legalizes Gay Marriage, Prime Minister Marries Partner

Photobucket

We missed this awesome news: Iceland has not only legalized gay marriage this past weekend, but its Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir married her long-term partner on the day it took effect, making her the world's only national leader with a same-sex spouse:

Sigurdardottir, 67, married writer Jonina Leosdottir on Sunday, the day a new law took effect defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults regardless of sex.

The two had had a civil union for years and changed this into a marriage under the new law, which was approved by parliament earlier this month.

The new law was celebrated at a church service on Sunday, which was also the international day for homosexual rights.

Warm fuzzies! Sigurdardottir's statement about the new law was that it was a cause for celebration for all of Iceland, adding: "I have today taken advantage of this new legislation." Indeed.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

Research Participation Opportunity

If you are a woman between the ages of 20 and 50, have not yet borne children, and believe yourself fertile, these folks are looking for you. Your participation may even win you prizes.
Read more here:

http://www.laterchildbearing.com/Survey_English.aspx