Sleeping with the enemy: Beware of Sexual Partners

by Rhonda J Mangus | April 10, 2009 at 08:09 pm

1655 views | 64 Recommendations | 23 comments

April is STD Awareness Month, and the phrase "sleeping with the enemy" has apparently taken on a whole new meaning.

A new study shows that a sexual partner's activities may have more to do with whether or not you gets an STD than your own behavior.

Participants in the study included 412 black and white men and women ages 15 to 24 who attended an urban STD clinic in Pittsburgh. All reported having had heterosexual sex.

Each year, roughly 19 million people in the U.S. contract a sexually transmitted disease, says the CDC. About half are between the ages of 15 and 24.

Researchers measured six characteristics to gauge the risk of a sexual partner:

The partner had a problem with marijuana or alcohol.

The partner was at least five years older or younger.

The partner had been in jail.

The partner had had sex with other people in the past year.

The partner had had an STD in the past year.

Study participants were asked about their sexual characteristics and their partners' characteristics.

Among those whose partners' activities were labeled as high risk, 53% were diagnosed with an STD. Among those whose own behavior was labeled as high risk, 38% were diagnosed with an STD.

The riskiest characteristics were age difference and if the partner had had an STD in the past year.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

eastvanray

at 20:28 on April 10th, 2009

I find it strange that alcohol and pot were positive indicators for STD transmission but not IV drugs. In Vancouver where I live the IV drug users have pretty much every disease known to man from shooting up drugs (AIDS, TB, Hep-C, herpes..........) and I am pretty sure it is not because they have sex with people who's age is much different from their own.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 09:50 on April 11th, 2009

eastvanray, thank you for reading and commenting. This study is seemingly directed to hetero-sexuals and, for some reason it does not appear to directly take into account IV drug use as a factor associated with risky behaviors. Nonetheless, thank you for pointing it out.

Amitjha

at 00:19 on April 11th, 2009

Sleeping with the enemy.....for love and get desease and die.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 10:13 on April 11th, 2009

Not necessarily for love, Amitjha! And, not necessarily a death sentence. Casual sex is quite common, unfortunately! Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation!

gerrypopplestone

at 02:35 on April 12th, 2009

So what is 'unfortunate' about recreational, casual sex?

Rhonda J Mangus

at 03:13 on April 12th, 2009

Hi, gerrypopplestone! Do you really have to ask that question?

duo

at 07:23 on April 11th, 2009

I used to do contract legal work when my kids were young, so I could be off during the summer and when the need arose. (The economy was good.) Anyway, I worked at a company where folks were dropping like flies! They were going to funerals every week, because someone brought AIDS there. Apparently, it was someone highly desirable who didn't mind mixing sex in his or her worklife. It was a really huge company, Fortune 100, so I won't mention the name. What lots of people are not aware of is that it is COMMON among some people with AIDS to intentionally infect others when they discover they have it.

I have a friend who wound up being mother to her husband's young cousin. Both of the child's parents had died of AIDS, and she was born HIV infected. For a long time, her family told her the cocktail of pills she took were vitamins - until she was about 15 and started being interested in boys. They did not want her to risk infecting others, but telling her had the opposite reaction! She got STDs four or five times within the next two years, which means she was definitely having unprotected sex. My friend told the child's doctors that she and her husband were concerned about being sued about their young ward going around infecting folks with HIV, and they thought she might be arrested to boot. Wrong! The doctors told my friends that it was a common reaction at first, especially among teens, to want to take others down with them. The teen HIV clinic in Atlanta is HUGE. The girl confessed to allowing herself to be picked up by older guys - grownup married men - as well as becoming known as the "easy" girl in her highschool. So there is no telling how many people she infected. She was referred to counseling. I hope she got over her desire to share the pain.

Be good. If you cannot be good, please be careful!

Mary

Rhonda J Mangus

at 10:32 on April 11th, 2009

duo, thank you for reading and commenting.

"I hope she got over her desire to share the pain."

Here is some interesting information on trials for criminal transmission of HIV.

gerrypopplestone

at 02:42 on April 12th, 2009

I think you are being irresponsible in peddling the notion that 'some people with HIV intentionally infect others. You pick up one example of allegations, based on ...gossip?. How do you know so much about the intentions of others when presumably you don't know them or they don't go around telling people they intentionally infected someone? It is this kind of stereotype that does enormous damage to the reputations of HIV people who are going through enough without being blamed for something they may not have done at all! Please be careful about your accusations.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 03:15 on April 12th, 2009

Hi, gerry! I am not 'peddling' or accusing anyone of anything. I simply provided a link to criminal cases for the purposes of 'enlightening' the reader.

gerrypopplestone

at 12:51 on April 12th, 2009

Sorry - that was a comment for Duo!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 14:14 on April 12th, 2009

No problem, gerry!:)

Rhonda J Mangus

at 11:03 on April 11th, 2009

Roy, it seems you missed another Important Fact! (from aids.about.com)

"Numbers and percentages really are just guidelines. Infection can and does occur after one unprotected sexual encounter or after sharing a needle once. The only way to know if you've been infected is to get tested. Percentages and numbers should not be a substitute for testing and safer sex."

Rhonda J Mangus

at 13:42 on April 11th, 2009

Thanks, Roy!:)

"I was talking purely about the statistics on the probability."

You were not clear on the IMPORTANT FACTS associated with "the statistics on the probability."

duo

at 13:34 on April 11th, 2009

Do you have information about the AIDS test? I read years ago that the test is only accurate in testing to see whether the subject had HIV six (6) months prior to testing. In other words, at the time that I read about it, HIV apparently does not show up immediately. Therefore, one could get a negative test result even if he/she were infected the previous week. Is that still the case with the tests? Is there still a lag time?

Mary

Rhonda J Mangus

at 16:42 on April 11th, 2009

Hi, duo! Information related to HIV/AIDS Testing related to your question from the Center for Disease Control:

"Most HIV tests are antibody tests that measure the antibodies your body makes against HIV. It can take some time for the immune system to produce enough antibodies for the antibody test to detect, and this time period can vary from person to person. This time period is commonly referred to as the “window period.” Most people will develop detectable antibodies within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days). Even so, there is a chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies. Therefore, if the initial negative HIV test was conducted within the first 3 months after possible exposure, repeat testing should be considered >3 months after the exposure occurred to account for the possibility of a false-negative result. Ninety-seven percent of persons will develop antibodies in the first 3 months following the time of their infection. In very rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV.

Another type of test is an RNA test, which detects the HIV virus directly. The time between HIV infection and RNA detection is 9–11 days. These tests, which are more costly and used less often than antibody tests, are used in some parts of the United States."

I hope you find this information helpful.

gerrypopplestone

at 12:52 on April 12th, 2009

Three months not six. There is a lot of free information available on HIV these days.

danesller0127

at 14:58 on April 11th, 2009

I don't like this practice it's by the Devil.... Thanks! Rhonda''''''' for the story..... :(

Rhonda J Mangus

at 16:44 on April 11th, 2009

You are very welcome, danesller0127! Thank you for reading, commenting, and for the recommendation! I am not quite sure, however, what you mean by "I don't like this practice it's by the Devil...".

danesller0127

at 14:11 on April 12th, 2009

Ah! It;s only on my mind .... what i mean is drugs, alcohol and marijuana, or drug abuses that resulting to health problem... sexual intercourse (vaginal and anal), oral-genital contact, and the use of sexual "toys," such as vibrators. ... is not a good practice specially to both partner that they maybe encountered STD infection... :D

Rhonda J Mangus

at 14:15 on April 12th, 2009

Thank you for clarifying your previous comment, danesller0127!

gerrypopplestone

at 02:34 on April 12th, 2009

I think this is a very emotive study and quite retrograde! What does ganga have to do with an STD infection? Nothing at all! Age difference - what the connection? Do older people give their partners STDs more frequently? Rubbish! Jail: what's that got to do with it? How come they appear not to have thought about condom use as one measure? Surely that possibly help to limit STDs. You don't sday what constitutes high rish but Im assuming its the list of factors you mention. There are sounder epidemiological studies than this one!