Submitted by: Dominiqua Griffin
Flavored condoms? Edible underwear? Both are made to spice up your sex life! While they’re meant to be fun, you should still use them correctly to stay safe!
Edible panties are fun, but may involve the risk of sexually transmitted infection (STI). To ensure that you remain safe while giving oral sex, you can use a latex barrier (some call it a dental dam), which is a thin latex film. You must commit to using one side so that fluids are not transferred from your partner to your mouth, because STIs are transmitted through bodily fluids. It just creates a barrier between the genital area and your mouth. If you don't have a latex barrier, you can use a male condom split in half or cheap saran wrap. Cheap saran wrap is less porous and therefore prevents the transfer of fluids.
Flavored condoms for oral sex come in handy as well. They are preferred for oral sex over vaginal or anal sex, where they could cause irritation because of the sugary flavor. This can increase the chances of you or your partner getting a yeast infection. Before using them for vaginal sex, check the packaging to see if the company recommends it. If the condom is not recommended for vaginal sex then don't use it for anal sex as well because the same thing can occur - irritation.
Edible, flavored, or otherwise, have fun and be safe! Remember that SBI Health Education gives out free condoms (non-flavored), so come visit us!
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Reality TV Has Gone Too Far
By Shannon Gawel
Events Coordinator at SBI Health Education
OK, I put up with the shows about too many children, too many wives and too many tans. And I don’t mean that I sit through entire episodes. I mean I put up with the fact they exist. So, when I found out there was going to be a show on E! where brides-to-be were going to compete for plastic surgery for their big day, my stomach just sank.
There have been shows about plastic surgery before. In 2004, The Swan took “ugly” women with low self-esteem and gave them a coach, a therapist, cosmetic surgeons and a dentist. After a three month transformation, the panel would rate their achievement and see if they were worthy to move on and compete in “The Swan Pageant.” All of the people on the panel were legitimate experts, the surgeons were board certified, and the therapist had written several self-help books. And the main difference: the women didn’t have a “wish-list” of what surgeries they wanted.
On the aptly named Bridalplasty, premiering Nov. 28, the women will compete each week in challenges such as writing vows and honeymoon planning. The winner gets one procedure from their list. For example, if they won two weeks in a row, they’d get two procedures in two weeks. Besides making America look extremely shallow, it also has some ethical issues. Under the American Society of Plastic Surgeons code of ethics, "We're technically prohibited from giving procedures away as a prize for a contest. It totally undermines the doctor-patient relationship," says Dr. Gayle Gordillo, associate professor plastic surgery at Ohio State University. "The ethical and social implications of this [show] are frightening" (abcnews.go.com.)
Of course, every bride wants to look beautiful on their wedding day. That’s why it’s OK for them to splurge on getting a manicure, getting their hair and make-up done professionally-because it’s their special day. But, in contrast to this new show, who’s going to tell them they’re already beautiful without these things and more? This show might actually be playing into a serious psychiatric condition called Body Dysmorphic Disorder, where there is an unrealistic goal for the ideal image, and people that have this are fixated on supposed flaws.
I can only hope this show bombs after a few episodes. I don’t want to watch women put themselves through all that pain to be a pre-conceived idea of beauty based on a ridiculous societal standard.
If you need a better wedding show to watch, catch David Tutera on My Fair Wedding on WE TV. He makes every bride feel like a princess for the right reasons.
Remember, if (s)he asked you to marry them, they love you for who you are! You should too. There’s no one else out there like you, and if they want you to change how you look, they don’t deserve you.
Sources: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/bridalplasty-compete-nose-jobs-implants-dream-wedding/story?id=11663378&page=2 And www.wikepedia.org
Events Coordinator at SBI Health Education
OK, I put up with the shows about too many children, too many wives and too many tans. And I don’t mean that I sit through entire episodes. I mean I put up with the fact they exist. So, when I found out there was going to be a show on E! where brides-to-be were going to compete for plastic surgery for their big day, my stomach just sank.
There have been shows about plastic surgery before. In 2004, The Swan took “ugly” women with low self-esteem and gave them a coach, a therapist, cosmetic surgeons and a dentist. After a three month transformation, the panel would rate their achievement and see if they were worthy to move on and compete in “The Swan Pageant.” All of the people on the panel were legitimate experts, the surgeons were board certified, and the therapist had written several self-help books. And the main difference: the women didn’t have a “wish-list” of what surgeries they wanted.
On the aptly named Bridalplasty, premiering Nov. 28, the women will compete each week in challenges such as writing vows and honeymoon planning. The winner gets one procedure from their list. For example, if they won two weeks in a row, they’d get two procedures in two weeks. Besides making America look extremely shallow, it also has some ethical issues. Under the American Society of Plastic Surgeons code of ethics, "We're technically prohibited from giving procedures away as a prize for a contest. It totally undermines the doctor-patient relationship," says Dr. Gayle Gordillo, associate professor plastic surgery at Ohio State University. "The ethical and social implications of this [show] are frightening" (abcnews.go.com.)
Of course, every bride wants to look beautiful on their wedding day. That’s why it’s OK for them to splurge on getting a manicure, getting their hair and make-up done professionally-because it’s their special day. But, in contrast to this new show, who’s going to tell them they’re already beautiful without these things and more? This show might actually be playing into a serious psychiatric condition called Body Dysmorphic Disorder, where there is an unrealistic goal for the ideal image, and people that have this are fixated on supposed flaws.
I can only hope this show bombs after a few episodes. I don’t want to watch women put themselves through all that pain to be a pre-conceived idea of beauty based on a ridiculous societal standard.
If you need a better wedding show to watch, catch David Tutera on My Fair Wedding on WE TV. He makes every bride feel like a princess for the right reasons.
Remember, if (s)he asked you to marry them, they love you for who you are! You should too. There’s no one else out there like you, and if they want you to change how you look, they don’t deserve you.
Sources: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/bridalplasty-compete-nose-jobs-implants-dream-wedding/story?id=11663378&page=2 And www.wikepedia.org
Monday, November 8, 2010
One in 10 sexually active teens has same-sex partners
Thursday, October 28, 2010
By Zach Gottlieb
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A new study suggests that nearly one in sexually active ten teens have same-sex partners -- almost twice as many as previous research found. According to a 2002 study of Massachusetts and Vermont teens, only 5 percent to 6 percent of teens had same-sex partners.
In the new study, 9.3 percent of teens said they did.
"Clearly there's a high rate of same-sex partners among teens, and we need to recognize any vulnerabilities that may be associated with these behaviors," said Dr. Susan Blank, an assistant commissioner at the NYC Health Department. Blank, who was not involved with the study, was referring to a lower rate of condom use and unwanted sex among teens with same-sex partners seen in the study.
The new research, published in the journal Pediatrics, looked at more than 17,000 teens in New York City. It found that teens who had sex with only their own gender or with both genders were more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors, putting themselves at greater risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, half of the 18 million new cases of STDs that occur each year happen among people aged 15 to 24.
Such risky behaviors included not using a condom during sex and having forced sex. More than half of boys who engaged in bisexual behavior didn't use a condom, compared to a fifth of those who engaged exclusively in heterosexual behavior. The difference was not quite as large for girls who engaged in bisexual behavior and those who engaged exclusively in heterosexual behavior, but it was similar: About half of the former didn't use a condom, compared to 30 percent of the latter.
About a third of those teens who engaged in bisexual behavior had forced sex at some point in their lives, much higher than the 6 percent of those boys who engaged exclusively in heterosexual behavior and the 16 percent of the similar group of girls.
Elizabeth Saewyc, a researcher at the University of British Columbia, told Reuters Health that these teens may engage in riskier behavior because sex education programs don't always acknowledge gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships.
"Some teens I've seen tell me that they completely check out of sex ed because they feel what they were learning didn't apply to them," said Saewyc, who was not involved in the new study.
She suggested that educators need to acknowledge gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships more often in sex education curriculums so that teens are more likely to listen and will feel more comfortable discussing any issues.
Though the authors of the new study report that the rate of same-sex partners is higher than previous studies, Saewyc pointed that this rate is actually similar to what she has seen in her own work and other studies.
In the 2008 British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey, for teens who were sexually active, 8 percent of males and 10 percent of females reported having had a same-sex partner. In a study looking at the 2001 Minnesota Student Survey, 9.4 percent of teens reported having had partners of the same or both sexes.
Dr. Preeti Pathela, lead author of the new study, said the results may have been different this time around because some states do not measure same-sex encounters. Still, Pathela said, it's clear that some teens are more vulnerable to risky behavior and STDs than others. In discussing sexual relationships and potential risks, she said it is important that parents, educators, and researchers focus on behaviors and not just on sexual identity.
"How teens identify themselves doesn't always correlate with actual behaviors," said Pathela, a research scientist in the New York Department of Public Health and Mental Hygiene. "Behavior is a better measure of what's actually happening because teens are changing rapidly." SOURCE: http://link.reuters.com/gas77m Pediatrics, October 25, 2010.
Reuters Health
(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2010. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
By Zach Gottlieb
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A new study suggests that nearly one in sexually active ten teens have same-sex partners -- almost twice as many as previous research found. According to a 2002 study of Massachusetts and Vermont teens, only 5 percent to 6 percent of teens had same-sex partners.
In the new study, 9.3 percent of teens said they did.
"Clearly there's a high rate of same-sex partners among teens, and we need to recognize any vulnerabilities that may be associated with these behaviors," said Dr. Susan Blank, an assistant commissioner at the NYC Health Department. Blank, who was not involved with the study, was referring to a lower rate of condom use and unwanted sex among teens with same-sex partners seen in the study.
The new research, published in the journal Pediatrics, looked at more than 17,000 teens in New York City. It found that teens who had sex with only their own gender or with both genders were more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors, putting themselves at greater risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, half of the 18 million new cases of STDs that occur each year happen among people aged 15 to 24.
Such risky behaviors included not using a condom during sex and having forced sex. More than half of boys who engaged in bisexual behavior didn't use a condom, compared to a fifth of those who engaged exclusively in heterosexual behavior. The difference was not quite as large for girls who engaged in bisexual behavior and those who engaged exclusively in heterosexual behavior, but it was similar: About half of the former didn't use a condom, compared to 30 percent of the latter.
About a third of those teens who engaged in bisexual behavior had forced sex at some point in their lives, much higher than the 6 percent of those boys who engaged exclusively in heterosexual behavior and the 16 percent of the similar group of girls.
Elizabeth Saewyc, a researcher at the University of British Columbia, told Reuters Health that these teens may engage in riskier behavior because sex education programs don't always acknowledge gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships.
"Some teens I've seen tell me that they completely check out of sex ed because they feel what they were learning didn't apply to them," said Saewyc, who was not involved in the new study.
She suggested that educators need to acknowledge gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships more often in sex education curriculums so that teens are more likely to listen and will feel more comfortable discussing any issues.
Though the authors of the new study report that the rate of same-sex partners is higher than previous studies, Saewyc pointed that this rate is actually similar to what she has seen in her own work and other studies.
In the 2008 British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey, for teens who were sexually active, 8 percent of males and 10 percent of females reported having had a same-sex partner. In a study looking at the 2001 Minnesota Student Survey, 9.4 percent of teens reported having had partners of the same or both sexes.
Dr. Preeti Pathela, lead author of the new study, said the results may have been different this time around because some states do not measure same-sex encounters. Still, Pathela said, it's clear that some teens are more vulnerable to risky behavior and STDs than others. In discussing sexual relationships and potential risks, she said it is important that parents, educators, and researchers focus on behaviors and not just on sexual identity.
"How teens identify themselves doesn't always correlate with actual behaviors," said Pathela, a research scientist in the New York Department of Public Health and Mental Hygiene. "Behavior is a better measure of what's actually happening because teens are changing rapidly." SOURCE: http://link.reuters.com/gas77m Pediatrics, October 25, 2010.
Reuters Health
(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2010. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
Monday, October 25, 2010
Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex
This is a very interesting and eye opening blog post. Definitely something to check out!
Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex
Gay Sex vs. Straight Sex
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Scholars Examine Cyberbullying Among College Students
By Jill Laster
http://chronicle.com/article/2-Scholars-Examine/65766/
When Megan Meier hanged herself three weeks before her 14th birthday, in 2006, it sent shock waves through the small town of Dardenne Prairie, Miss. But when an investigation revealed that she had done so after being bullied online by the mother of a friend, Megan's death made national news and helped spark a wave of research on cyberbullying.
While much of the scholarship has focused on adolescents, work has also been done on the phenomenon at the college level. Ikuko Aoyama, a doctoral candidate in educational psychology at Baylor University, presented her work on sex differences in cyberbullying at a recent conference of the American Educational Research Association. She spoke with The Chronicle along with her adviser, Tony L. Talbert, an associate professor in Baylor's School of Education.
Q. What sort of differences have researchers found in male and female bullying?
A. Ms. Aoyama: In traditional bullying, sex differences are well documented. Males are engaged in more physical types of bullying, such as hitting and kicking; on the other hand, females are engaged in more indirect and psychological bullying, such as social exclusion or rumor-spreading. ... We looked at if the similar pattern was observed for cyberbullying contexts. In the beginning, the results on sex differences were inconsistent across the researchers. However, more studies have found that there are no big sex differences, like in traditional bullying.
Q. Why do you think that might be?
A. Ms. Aoyama: In cyberbullying, physical strength, or age or sex, is not a factor to determine if they are a victim or a bully, because they don't involve face-to-face interaction.
Q. How does the fact that this is all taking place virtually affect bullying?
A. Ms. Aoyama: Studies we have done did not identify "pure victims" or "pure bullies," and many students are in a "bully-victim" group. Because students can avoid face-to-face interaction and remain anonymous, it is easy for victims to cyberbully back others.
Mr. Talbert: From adolescence to high school to college, the technology literally becomes almost this great equalizer. It becomes this medium where people create these alternative identities—from Second Life to social-networking sites—but the rules as we understand them from bullying from a physical standpoint have completely changed.
Q. How does the effect of cyberbullying on the victim differ from that of traditional bullying?
A. Mr. Talbert: The impact from a psychological perspective hasn't really changed. Our laws have not really kept up, and our psychological education of using technology and its impact on the psyche has not kept up, either with the technology or the users of the technology.
Q. What are universities doing now to curb cyberbullying among their students?
A. Ms. Aoyama: I have never heard of colleges or universities limiting cyberbullying or taking preventive actions, but it is necessary to raise the awareness among administrators and students. For example, our school has "Alcohol Awareness Week" or "Eating-Disorder Awareness Month," and they have posters or speakers all over the campus during the week or month. I wish we could do something like that.
Q. The paper presented at the education-research conference says that "considering the fact that as many as 70 percent of middle- and high-school students have experienced cyberbullying, it is probable that the prevalence among college students will be higher" in the future. Why might that be true?
A. Ms. Aoyama: Many cyberbullying studies are focusing on middle- and high-school students, and there are few studies on college students. But I don't think many high-school students who experienced cyberbullying will suddenly change once they enter college, even though they may be more mature. I think they already learned that this is a way to put down others.
Q. Students coming to college in 10 or 20 years will be more comfortable with technology from a younger age. How do you think that will affect cyberbullying at a postsecondary level?
A. Mr. Talbert: As attitudes evolve and as the use of technology evolves among university students, what could be interesting is looking at it from a longitudinal standpoint. Here's this cohort of students in 2010—what happens in 2015? What's interesting is to look at digital natives from 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and see if we do have a shifting in the moral or psychological attitude.
http://chronicle.com/article/2-Scholars-Examine/65766/
When Megan Meier hanged herself three weeks before her 14th birthday, in 2006, it sent shock waves through the small town of Dardenne Prairie, Miss. But when an investigation revealed that she had done so after being bullied online by the mother of a friend, Megan's death made national news and helped spark a wave of research on cyberbullying.
While much of the scholarship has focused on adolescents, work has also been done on the phenomenon at the college level. Ikuko Aoyama, a doctoral candidate in educational psychology at Baylor University, presented her work on sex differences in cyberbullying at a recent conference of the American Educational Research Association. She spoke with The Chronicle along with her adviser, Tony L. Talbert, an associate professor in Baylor's School of Education.
Q. What sort of differences have researchers found in male and female bullying?
A. Ms. Aoyama: In traditional bullying, sex differences are well documented. Males are engaged in more physical types of bullying, such as hitting and kicking; on the other hand, females are engaged in more indirect and psychological bullying, such as social exclusion or rumor-spreading. ... We looked at if the similar pattern was observed for cyberbullying contexts. In the beginning, the results on sex differences were inconsistent across the researchers. However, more studies have found that there are no big sex differences, like in traditional bullying.
Q. Why do you think that might be?
A. Ms. Aoyama: In cyberbullying, physical strength, or age or sex, is not a factor to determine if they are a victim or a bully, because they don't involve face-to-face interaction.
Q. How does the fact that this is all taking place virtually affect bullying?
A. Ms. Aoyama: Studies we have done did not identify "pure victims" or "pure bullies," and many students are in a "bully-victim" group. Because students can avoid face-to-face interaction and remain anonymous, it is easy for victims to cyberbully back others.
Mr. Talbert: From adolescence to high school to college, the technology literally becomes almost this great equalizer. It becomes this medium where people create these alternative identities—from Second Life to social-networking sites—but the rules as we understand them from bullying from a physical standpoint have completely changed.
Q. How does the effect of cyberbullying on the victim differ from that of traditional bullying?
A. Mr. Talbert: The impact from a psychological perspective hasn't really changed. Our laws have not really kept up, and our psychological education of using technology and its impact on the psyche has not kept up, either with the technology or the users of the technology.
Q. What are universities doing now to curb cyberbullying among their students?
A. Ms. Aoyama: I have never heard of colleges or universities limiting cyberbullying or taking preventive actions, but it is necessary to raise the awareness among administrators and students. For example, our school has "Alcohol Awareness Week" or "Eating-Disorder Awareness Month," and they have posters or speakers all over the campus during the week or month. I wish we could do something like that.
Q. The paper presented at the education-research conference says that "considering the fact that as many as 70 percent of middle- and high-school students have experienced cyberbullying, it is probable that the prevalence among college students will be higher" in the future. Why might that be true?
A. Ms. Aoyama: Many cyberbullying studies are focusing on middle- and high-school students, and there are few studies on college students. But I don't think many high-school students who experienced cyberbullying will suddenly change once they enter college, even though they may be more mature. I think they already learned that this is a way to put down others.
Q. Students coming to college in 10 or 20 years will be more comfortable with technology from a younger age. How do you think that will affect cyberbullying at a postsecondary level?
A. Mr. Talbert: As attitudes evolve and as the use of technology evolves among university students, what could be interesting is looking at it from a longitudinal standpoint. Here's this cohort of students in 2010—what happens in 2015? What's interesting is to look at digital natives from 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and see if we do have a shifting in the moral or psychological attitude.
Lubricant Use May Raise HIV Infection Risk During Anal Sex
HealthDay
By Alan Mozes
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
TUESDAY, May 25 (HealthDay News) -- The use of lubricants during unprotected anal intercourse may indirectly raise the risk of HIV transmission in the receptive partner, among both men and women, new research warns.
Concern about the possibility is being raised in the form of two new studies, and revolves around the fact that HIV infection risk rises if other infections are already present in the rectal lining of the receptive partner, the study authors noted.
In that light, indications that some lubricants may contribute to a generally increased risk for sexually transmitted infections, and therefore in turn for HIV, are scheduled for presentation this week in Pittsburgh at the International Microbicides Conference.
Conducted between 2006 and 2008, one study -- which focused on approximately 900 residents in the Baltimore and Los Angeles region -- observed that men and women who use lubricants in general are three times more likely to have some form of a rectal sexually transmitted infection. The finding held regardless of gender, HIV status, condom use, and the number of sex partners the study participants had had in the prior month.
Although no specific lubricants were identified as particularly problematic, most study participants said they used a water-based lubricant (76 percent), while 28 percent used silicon-based products, 17 percent oil-based lubricants, and 6 percent said used a numbing lubricant.
The second study -- led by Charlene Dezzutti of the University of Pittsburgh and the Microbicide Trials Network -- looked at five of the most popular over-the-counter and/or mail-order lubricants, identified as such through a survey of 9,000 men and women living in 100 different countries.
All the lubricants were water-based, except for one silicon-based product.
The research team -- including collaborators from International Rectal Microbicide Advocates (IRMA) -- did not examine the effect of lubricant use during actual sex. However, in laboratory testing, some of the lubricants were found to have a toxic effect on cells and rectal tissue, perhaps as the result of the dissolved salts and sugars the products contained.
PRE and Wet Platinum were found to be the safest lubricants in terms of toxicity, whereas Astroglide and KY Jelly appeared to be the most problematic.
"We know we can't make any conclusions based on this one small study," cautioned IRMA lubricant safety advocate Marc-Andre LeBlanc, in a news release. "Further research is absolutely necessary to understand the potential role of sexual lubricants in HIV transmission. We should be able to provide consumer guidance regarding lubes that are found to be safer than others."
"Some lubes are probably better than others, but we don't know where any of the currently available products fall along the spectrum from good to bad," added IRMA chair Jim Pickett.
"We must ensure that existing lubes don't facilitate HIV transmission," he added. "People have a right to this kind of information, and it's very past due."
Conference organizers pointed out that in the United States, 90 percent of men who have sex with men -- whether self-identified as gay or not -- engage in receptive anal intercourse. Between 10 percent and 35 percent of heterosexual women have done so at least once. And in either instance, condoms are often not used, while lubricants are.
SOURCE: International Microbicides Conference, news release, May 25, 2010
By Alan Mozes
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
TUESDAY, May 25 (HealthDay News) -- The use of lubricants during unprotected anal intercourse may indirectly raise the risk of HIV transmission in the receptive partner, among both men and women, new research warns.
Concern about the possibility is being raised in the form of two new studies, and revolves around the fact that HIV infection risk rises if other infections are already present in the rectal lining of the receptive partner, the study authors noted.
In that light, indications that some lubricants may contribute to a generally increased risk for sexually transmitted infections, and therefore in turn for HIV, are scheduled for presentation this week in Pittsburgh at the International Microbicides Conference.
Conducted between 2006 and 2008, one study -- which focused on approximately 900 residents in the Baltimore and Los Angeles region -- observed that men and women who use lubricants in general are three times more likely to have some form of a rectal sexually transmitted infection. The finding held regardless of gender, HIV status, condom use, and the number of sex partners the study participants had had in the prior month.
Although no specific lubricants were identified as particularly problematic, most study participants said they used a water-based lubricant (76 percent), while 28 percent used silicon-based products, 17 percent oil-based lubricants, and 6 percent said used a numbing lubricant.
The second study -- led by Charlene Dezzutti of the University of Pittsburgh and the Microbicide Trials Network -- looked at five of the most popular over-the-counter and/or mail-order lubricants, identified as such through a survey of 9,000 men and women living in 100 different countries.
All the lubricants were water-based, except for one silicon-based product.
The research team -- including collaborators from International Rectal Microbicide Advocates (IRMA) -- did not examine the effect of lubricant use during actual sex. However, in laboratory testing, some of the lubricants were found to have a toxic effect on cells and rectal tissue, perhaps as the result of the dissolved salts and sugars the products contained.
PRE and Wet Platinum were found to be the safest lubricants in terms of toxicity, whereas Astroglide and KY Jelly appeared to be the most problematic.
"We know we can't make any conclusions based on this one small study," cautioned IRMA lubricant safety advocate Marc-Andre LeBlanc, in a news release. "Further research is absolutely necessary to understand the potential role of sexual lubricants in HIV transmission. We should be able to provide consumer guidance regarding lubes that are found to be safer than others."
"Some lubes are probably better than others, but we don't know where any of the currently available products fall along the spectrum from good to bad," added IRMA chair Jim Pickett.
"We must ensure that existing lubes don't facilitate HIV transmission," he added. "People have a right to this kind of information, and it's very past due."
Conference organizers pointed out that in the United States, 90 percent of men who have sex with men -- whether self-identified as gay or not -- engage in receptive anal intercourse. Between 10 percent and 35 percent of heterosexual women have done so at least once. And in either instance, condoms are often not used, while lubricants are.
SOURCE: International Microbicides Conference, news release, May 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)