E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The Star-Ledger
Organ transplant experts are worried that proposed new federal health guidelines will limit the number of available donors and recipients willing to accept organs newly classified as risky.
If you've had sex with two or more partners in the past year, you may be considered a risky organ donor, at least according to proposed new federal health guidelines that have drawn sharp protests from transplant experts who say they're far too broad.
“With the new guidelines, every college student in America will be high risk,” said Dr. Harry Dorn-Arias, a transplant surgeon at the University of Virginia. “Right now, it's probably a prostitute or a guy with a needle in his arm. Next time, it will be just a young guy."
Under the new policy proposed this fall by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, deceased and living donors who were not monogamous in the previous 12 months would be considered at increased risk of transmitting HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C -- even if they had no other risk factors
CDC officials say the proposed guidelines are aimed at making the organ supply safer and preventing accidental transmission of life-threatening infections. The policies wouldn’t absolutely ban anyone from donating, especially in an exceptional or life-saving situation, but they would call for more scrutiny and testing.
“It’s geared for the patient so the patient knows as much as they can about the organ being transplanted in them,” said Dr. Matthew J. Kuehnert, director of the CDC’s office of Blood, Organ and Other Tissue Safety.
But transplant experts are outraged because they say the proposal arbitrarily focuses on monogamy and could limit both the number of available donors and the number of recipients willing to accept organs newly classified as risky.
They worry that potential living donors may balk at donating if they know their sexual history alone could raise questions about their suitability, particularly if the situation involved a family member.
“If you were going to give your organ to your mom or dad or sister, you’re going to be ashamed of that,” said Dorn-Arias. “You’re either going to say no, or you’re going to lie.”
The proposed policy could also require families of deceased donors to answer uncomfortable questions -- ones they may not even know the answers to -- about the specific sexual behaviors of their loved ones.
“It’s probably going to triple what we consider high risk at this point,” said Tracy Giacoma, transplant administrator at the University of Kansas Hospital. “It may scare patients off from taking these organs. More patients may die because they don’t take these organs.”
More than 28,000 organs are transplanted each year, but more than 112,000 people are on organ waiting lists, according to figures from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.
The guidelines could affect a wide swath of potential donors, particularly younger people. About a quarter of women and nearly 30 percent of men ages 20 to 24 said they had two or more sexual partners in the past 12 months, according to a 2006-2008 report by the National Center for Health Statistics.
Live Poll
Should donors who have had more than two sex partners in a year be considered high risk?
When tragic deaths occur, those are precisely the people who should donate their organs, if possible, Giacoma said.
"If you have a [donor] that's 19 years old and he had multiple partners, we'll have to tell the recipient, this is a high-risk organ," she said.
The sexual partner tally is only one of several new factors that could tag a potential donor as being at increased risk of infection. It’s part of a larger set of guidelines that would update 1994 Public Health Service policies for preventing transmission of HIV through human tissue and organs.
"Our priority here is patient safety," said Kuehnert, who noted that the guidelines describe "increased risk," not "high risk," of infection. "[Patients] should know if they're getting an organ at elevated risk."
The 1994 guidlines exclude certain groups as donors, including men who have had sex with other men within the past five years, people who've used IV drugs or exchanged sex for money or drugs in the past five years, hemophiliacs, those exposed to HIV, and people who've had sex with anyone in those categories. They also limit people who've been incarcerated.
The new plan calls for the first-ever guidelines for testing living donors and it adds hepatitis B and hepatitis C to the list of must-test viruses, along with HIV, Kuehnert said. As it stands now, only HIV is included in the guidelines, though most organ transplant centers do test for a range of other potential diseases.
The proposal also calls for use of the most sensitive tests available to detect infection and for shorter testing windows to avoid transmitting infections, which occurs in an estimated 1 percent of transplant cases and has been fatal, Kuehnert said.
Between 2007 and 2010, the CDC participated in more than 200 investigations of suspect unexpected transmission of infections including HIV and hepatitis B and C, with dozens of cases confirmed, Kuehnert added.
The risk of infection from organs may be rare, but it's real. Helen Boucher's husband, George, 54, of Pawtucket, R.I., died in 2005 after receiving a kidney tainted with a rare infection traced back to a virus from the donor's pet hamster. The new guidelines wouldn't have helped detect the Lymphocytic Choriomeningitis virus -- known as LCMV -- but Helen Boucher, now 61, said preventing the trauma her family endured is worth any extra scrutiny.
"My gut feeling is if you want to be a donor, you’re doing a wonderful thing, but you also have to think about what could happen to the recipient," she said. "If I’m willing to be a donor, I’m willing to answer any of those questions that someone is going to ask of me."
The proposed guidelines shorten the time frame for many of the higher-risk behaviors from five years to one year. But they also classify as risky people who have used kidney dialysis during that time; people who have snorted cocaine or heroin nasally; those who've been in prison, jail or juvenile detention centers for more than three consecutive days in the past year; those who currently have or who have been treated for syphilis, gonorrhea or genital ulcers in the past year and people who have immigrated to the United States within the last year from a country with a high prevalence of hepatitis B.
Other aspects of the plan have drawn fire from transplant experts who object to tests that might be too expensive and too slow for all centers to administer.
But it's the new emphasis on two or more sexual partners that has ignited most ire, judging from public comments about the proposal being accepted through Dec. 21 at www.regulations.gov.
“I am opposed to the guidelines as written,” wrote Dr. John Radomski, chief of surgery at Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center in Camden, N.J. “The list of high risk behavior seems way too broad.”
CDC officials downplayed the controversy, saying that the proposal is a draft and can be changed, particularly if there's strong evidence to support any alteration. They said the primary goal is to obtain as much information about transplanted organs as possible, whether that comes from personal histories or advanced screening tests.
Using a set of behaviors to gauge risk makes sense, Kuehnert said, and studies suggest that having more than one sexual partner raises the risk of infection.
“We can quibble about whether it should be two sexual partners or three or five or 10, but we’ll have to have a cut-off point,” he said.
Should donors who had sex with more than two people in a year be considered high risk? Tell us on Facebook.
Related stories:
Infected organs pose deadly transplant risk
Killer's quest: Allow organ donation after execution
Agencies consider new organ donation rules
Leave a Comment:
We should apply the same criteria to blood donations.
Right now, there is too much of a focus on preventing gay men from donating, when the issue of risk is really not sexual orientation but rather promiscuity.
That was exactly my thought. As an HIV negative gay man who has only had one partner for the last six years, I am not allowed to marry him (we are not in a state where it is legal for us to wed), if married that love and commitment would not be recognized for federal tax purposes, and not allowed to donate blood. Real risk factors should be considered, not those that are based solely on bigotry.
Dr.: "Mrs. Jones, we have your husband hear in the hospital. His heart and liver finally gave out. Your husband is being sustained by the machines right now. Yes, we do have a transplant available, but there is a problem. You see, well, the donor was not exactly a practicing catholic. Well, really, the donor was promiscuous. There may be a chance of infection. No we don't have any other donor organs available. Your husband will live for three or four days without the transplant, probably. There's a 75% chance that there will not be an accepatable match in that time. No, we do not have any information that there is an active infection. Yes, your husband will most likely die without the transplant. Okay, we'll begin the transplant immediately."
This story is just another waste of time. No one who is waiting for a transplant in order to LIVE will give a damn about the person's promiscuity.
I wonder if we could match risky organs to risky patients? Some alcoholic could get the risky liver, for example. Probably too hard to do that though. Not enough time or organs to choose from.
This seems a bit of overkill given only 1% of transplants result in an infection. Isn't there a shortage of donor organs?
I wonder if I would be considered risky? I've lived in Europe. Might have mad cow disease.
dirp
People do really stupid things in the name of bias.
There are still people in the US who refuse blood transfusions solely on the idea that they may get blood from a different race than they.
I always thought the problem was too much sex and too many hampsters.
This article did not explain the situation very well. The CDCP has studied organ donation to see if there are controllable factors that make being an organ recipient significantly higher risk of failure or complications. They have found that donors who had more than two partners in the previous year have organs that pose a significantly higher risk of complications.
Why? Because after organ replacement, recipients are given drugs to suppress their immune system so it won't reject the new organ. In an immuno-suppressed environment STD's such as HPV or even CMV or Herpes can be fatal in a way that cannot be successfully treated. The person might not even know that they are infected (about 40% of Herpes cases, for example, are asymptomatic.) Usuallt benign infections in an immuno-suppressed organ recipient are often fatal.
Since that one patient died after received a kidney tainted with a pet hamster's virus, perhaps the CDC should just limit donors to those who haven't had sex with a hamster in the past year.
When someone desperately needs an organ, any donor, except those with HIV or other dangerous infective diseases, should be considered as a potential donor. These proposed rules are excessive.
As for donors who have had genital ulcers, does the CDC include those who have non-contagious causes of those ulcers (such as with Crohn's or Behcet's Disease) unsuitable donors? Lots of questions remain...
But, Chris, if it is as risky as you say, wouldn't we be seeing an epidemic of organ recipients falling ill and/or dying after the transplant? Seriously, if 25% of sexually active adults have Herpes and 40% of those adults don't know they have it, wouldn't the instance of Herpes-related transplant failures be more prevalent? I should think that would be the case....
After adding in all the other illnesses you mention, its amazing anyone would survive a transplant, no?
One man's bigotry is another man's true and well-reasoned belief. Disagreement on a certain subject does not a bigot make. Is it possible that those that scream BIGOT at every person that disagrees with them are themselves a bigot?
This would completely eliminate everyone who lived during the 1970's !!
.
Ray M wrote "One man's bigotry is another man's true and well-reasoned belief."
With the gay male demographic, what, 25% HIV infection rates and the highest Hepatitis C rates, blood and organ donor organizations realize that collecting organs and blood from a high risk demographic is a waste of time and a major health risk.
Gingrich and Cain are out!!
Beggars can't be choosers.
Actually, the high risk-level associated with gay males is statistically indisputable.
Well, I can certainly see where the guidelines are coming from but I can also see the complications it cause. Im a monogamous female, been so for 6 years with my husband and I do donate blood and am a registered donor, but it would have sad had something happened to me when I first met my husband and had been listed on the 'risky' list. On th eother hand, I can also see how if I had been the recipient and found out I had been given a liver/heart/kidney that was riddled with a incurable STD or blood disease, Id be suing left and right and every one in between. And Id be asking the same questions, why isnt safeguards in place to prevent this?
This is a touchy issue and nowadays there is no such thing as an anonymous donors. If you are going to donate, DISCLOSE EVERYTHING!
This whole issue will go away once we can replicate organs in a lab. Just gotta replicate organs that don't have the markers on them that cause rejection, and you have a universal donor pool. Basically a "type-O" organ for everybody.
I have to agree with the accept this organ from a questionable source or die in two days thing. I'll take the organ and have whatever time left it allows me.
Aside from the question of sexual partners, all of the guidelines they have in place are currently the same ones they have for blood donation. They ask you about every kind of sex within several different time frames...if you have any qualms about disclosing your sexual history, I wouldn't recommend donating blood anytime soon, much less an organ. I agree with these regulations. Statistically speaking, the more partners you have, regardless of whether or not you have "safe" sex, you increase your risk of contracting an STD. Condoms don't protect against all STD's, and aren't particularly efficient against those they do. I think it's ridiculous that the key argument of the backlash is that some people will feel uncomfortable with sharing their sexual history. Get over yourself. If you want to be an organ donor, those screening you need to know exactly how healthy your organ is. As for recently deceased whose sexual history is unknown...run 'em through the tests.
It's pretty stupid. Someone may have only one sex partner and the partner may be cheating with multiple people.
When I was a blood plasma donor for the Red Cross I had to fill out a questionnaire before every session verifying that I was still candidate. The questions included whether I had gotten any tattoos, my sexual health, illegal drug use, had I recently been out of the country, had I been in direct contact with people that had recently been to certain countries, and even whether I had eaten at certain restaurants that had been linked with certain diseases. That was years ago. I know they were desperate for more donors but at the same time they felt they could not risk killing a recipient. Not only do they have to protect those people but they also have to protect themselves from law suits. It's bad enough when you need plasma, or blood or organs and can't get a donor but what about if there were no organizations left that help save people's lives?
His post about "Every college student will be high risk" infuriated me as I am a fourth-year university student, and am a virgin in every sense of the term-I have never even held hands with a guy. Many of my friends are as well, and most others are in relationships that they have been in for a LONG time...like marriage, or engagement.
While I can appreciate the value you place on virginity, sex is part of a normal functioning human.
It's simply not healthy to reach past the age of majority without having some sort of physical interaction with the gender to which you are attracted.
I mean no offense, but perhaps you may wish to seek help in evaluating your sex life.
Don't kid yourself, Music Girl. You and your friends are in a very small minority. If you're talking about males, it's even smaller no matter what they tell you.
@MusicGirl23, Where is this college that you're going to?
Atleast MusicGirl23 is not dropping babies around for the taxpayer to take care of.
fgh has a point. But I think what's going on here is that by being offended that people think she is having sex, music girl is herself being offensive to people who are (because she is offended to be associated with that dirty behavior).
While I surely commend you for staying true to yourself, MusicGirl, please tone down your holier than thou attitude. Not everyone has grown up in the same environment as you. In fact, you are very much in the minority if you haven't even held hands with a guy (what is wrong with that, BTW?). I kind of feel bad for you - there is nothing better than those first date flutters where you finally hold hands :-)
To..fgh""""
pro life I take it ..
I think it is really sad that all of you are saying that she is wrong for not having a sexual relationship. So are you telling your kids (if you have any), you better go out and sleep with someone because if you don't there must be something wrong with you and you will need professional help
I'm not offended by her post, but I am concerned for her well-being.
Such behaviour is not normal, at least outside of the constrictive social standards of, say, Saudi Arabia.
Mike,
I'm not talking about sex. I'm talking about plain old physical contact with someone.
Human babies die if they are not touched.
It is completely normal and healthy for people to hold hands, hug, and kiss one another. All are also very acceptable in our society, especially after age 16 or so.
I'm not talking about intercourse. Just friendly, rather chaste, physical contact.
Sex is a normal function of life, fortunately, or else the human race would have been in the chapter after the dinosaurs. Nature gave us the beauty and society gave us the dirt to smear on it. Each of us have our own drive, there is nothing wrong with having many partners, one or none. Just like eating we all have our own taste and decide what to eat; healthy or non healthy, too much or too little. In this respect sex and eating have their own consequences according to how we handled the drive.
@Cassivella : I don't know about you but this statement is not about holding hands:
"I mean no offense, but perhaps you may wish to seek help in evaluating your sex life"
Mike,
Sex life involves a lot more than simply intercourse.
It's cuddling, feeding each other spaghetti, loaning a jacket, sharing a chap-stick, holding hands, hugging, kissing, biting, licking, etc.
There is a multitude of ways to express intimacy.
It isn't normal in American culture to not have some sort of sex life, especially once you reach college.
Most American girls have at least held hands with a boy. I think I did that in 4th grade.
Heck, I think something like 40% of girls have had intercourse before they are 16.
It's completely respectable and fine to wait until you are married for intercourse. I did it. I'm making no judgement calls here.
However, it simply is not healthy to disassociate yourself so much from the gender to which you are attracted that you have had no physical contact with them whatsoever.
Yeah, thanks for being "outraged". Nobody really cares if you are a virgin. This is a story about decreasing the pool of potential donors who could donate an organ to save someones life, not about your decision not to have sex.
Stay on point.
Half your friends are lying and the other half are using the Clinton definition of virgin...
P.S. - Get laid already you repressed halfwit!
If more people were virgins, the pool of possible donors would rise. I think her complaint was valid, and while maybe not directly on point, it does go onto a valid tangent. Yes, total abstinence and chastity are extreme for her age, but I applaud her and her friends. I advised my own kids to not worry about dating until after college: all relationships take time and money and effort, and all of those should be going to education and building a future; once you get out of college and get a good job, then you can look for a mate. Until then, have friends of the opposite sex, or non serious dating relationships.
Anyhow, more virgins would make for a much larger donor pool; and with all the STD and other diseases out there, anyone single with more than two sexual partners per year is living dangerously. And, finally: they are not saying you cannot donate, they are just saying the recipient should be warned and given an option. Some of the extremist here say that in a life or death situation everyone would take a riskier organ, and I agree; but how many recipients actually only have hours to live and HAVE to take any organ that comes available? If they have the luxery of time, maybe some would rather not take an increased risk, and would appreciate knowing more information before they move forward.
Virginity at that age is unnatural.
I was also rather annoyed by the assumption that all college students are promiscuous. I didn't know that many virgins, but there were lots of girls I knew who only were intimate with long-term boyfriends and many of these couples did wind up eventually marrying. There's a lot of middle ground between virgin and slut.
"Virginity at that age is unnatural."
Really? In what medical journal might this be cited? Making an inane comment like this as a "purported professional" speaks to your wisdom, not hers. Time to change your faux-name, poser.
That's ridiculous. You people are insane. Sex is a bodily function... It's not a need. No one drops dead for lack of sex. Get your head of of your porn.
Lot's of people, sometimes out of choice, sometimes because they're physically unable, never have sex their entire lives.
Everyone can be as offended as they want, but the reality is that many college students are sexually active and I would wager that a lot of them are with more than one partner per year. Yes, there is a LOT of ground between being a virgin or a slut. I do not think that someone who has two partners in the span of 12 months is a slut or a manwhore or whatever derogatory description people come up with...
Let's say a high school student is with her boy friend for four years and they have sex after graduation. They move on to college and break up in the first month. Three months later, he meets a great girl. She meets a great guy. They wait 7 months to sleep together. BAM that's two in one year.
Is it virginal behavior? Of course not. But it's not sinister either. This scenario is actually far more responsible than most I have ever heard of. Anyone who doesn't think so needs to get real with themselves. Just because you may not be doing it, doesn't mean it's not happening in the real world. And it doesn't mean that those that are having sex are worthy of scarlet letter.
journal,
You aren't reading the posts. And you are squishing two commentators' posts together into one quote.
By American standards, it IS abnormal to be college-aged and to not have had physical contact with someone of a gender to which you are attracted.
This is as simple as holding hands or hugging. Few people make it to age 20 without having done these simple acts.
This isn't a judgement statement. It is simply a fact.
People do die from lack of contact. Infants will fail to thrive and die if they are deprived of physical contact.
Once again, we are not talking about intercourse. We are talking about intimate physical touching such as holding hands, hugging, and kissing - things that would make for a rather poor porn movie.
Perhaps you should try to read the posts before you decide to attack people.
What about kissing? Why do people HAVE to touch others of the opposite sex (or the same sex if they're homosexual) in order to be normal. Love can come from other places. She's probably not deprived of "physical contact" like some poor baby on a prison floor. I'm sure she has friends and family.
Love is necessary, sex is not. Love and physical contact does not have to come from potential a sexual partner to be beneficial.
End of story.
journal
We aren't talking about "potential sexual partners".
I'm simply talking about how it is normal for a 20 year old woman to hold hands, hug, or kiss someone she is dating, whereas statistically it is abnormal in our culture for that same woman to never have held hands, hugged, or kissed someone she is dating.
Humans express love physically. Not just sexual love, but platonic friendship - hugs, pats on the back, pats on the arms.
Touching feels good because we need it, and we need it because it feels good.
Statistically it may be "abnormal" but it isn't unheard of. I was also rather annoyed by that statement that every college student would be considered high-risk: I'm in college, a virgin, and I plan to keep it that way. I do have religious reasons for doing so, but beyond that, I've seen what promiscuity can do to a person in terms of their ability to maintain long term, healthy relationships. I've also seen what abstinence can do, which is promote them. I'm not saying that you MUST be abstinent in order to maintain a healthy marriage later in life...but my experience is that it helps tremendously. Plus there are plenty of health and social reasons for it...I'm not going to take ANY sort of chance of starting a family before I am ready to do so, especially not for the cheap thrill of a one-night stand.
That being said, I still think that Cassivella would consider me "abnormal" simply because I did not date in high school. I had a middle school "boyfriend" of the sitting-together-at-lunch variety...never kissed him, held hands ONCE. Fast forward five years...graduated from high school having not dated at all, but with plenty of close guy friends. I cherished my guy friends because I had absolved myself of the pressure to get into a relationship with one of them, so I could just hang out without any awkward tensions. I was better friends with guys than I was girls - not as much cattiness, and because I wasn't high-pressure or high-maintenance, they felt safe around me so they would actually talk to me. That being said, my best friend junior and senior year was a guy whom I'd known since middle school who shared a ton of interests and activities with me. He did ask me to prom and we went "as friends", but we were close enough by then that it wasn't weird at all when he asked me out during the summer and kissed me. We dated for a couple months, then he moved across the country for college. We're still best friends, but he's dating someone else.
Go ahead and call me abnormal for not chasing guys...I'd like a relationship as much as the next girl, but unlike the majority of the female teenage population of this nation, I am not going to make getting a guy my be-all-end-all in order to define myself. I respect myself too much for that, and I wish others would realize the same, for their sakes.
Oh, and I fully expected to make it to college without kissing a boy or doing any more than that one hand-hold from middle school. It's probably a lot less "abnormal" than you think.
RJH
You are certainly taking my comments to the extreme.
I simply said it was abnormal for someone to be in college without ever touching someone of the opposite sex, as musicgirl asserts.
You have done so. You have held hands. You have probably danced at the prom. You have had a kiss.
I am not sure why you would think your situation would apply. You are chasing a logical fallacy.
You all are obviously getting yourselves all upset and not actually reading what I am posting.
For the 50th time, I am not talking about sexual intercourse.
I am talking about simple physical touch.
It is abnormal to make it to college without physically touching someone you have dated.
Most people, even blind dates, will hold hands, touch an arm, or even hug at the end of a date.
RJH, I bet you even hugged one of your guy friends at some point.
So, please actually read the words I type instead of deciding to read into and between the words.
I'd like to clarify a few things...I have never been on a date. For one thing, I was not allowed to in high school. PLUS, I was way too busy prepping at my really tough high school to maintain my 95% average, practicing two instruments daily for my university audition, jazz band, worship team, volunteering, youth symphony orchestra...
I have numerous guy friends, and I have given some of them hugs. I'm not counting this at all, because it was platonic on BOTH sides. I have not had a 'romantic' relationship at all, mostly because of two reasons: ONE, I am incredibly busy, and TWO, the guys at my faculty are either TAKEN, INCREDIBLY STRANGE (although nice...) or gay. My faculty is very small, so it's not hard to see how this could happen.
Do I sometimes want to have a relationship (not sexual...again, that is part of my beliefs for numerous reasons, not just my Christian beliefs, but because I believe it is healthiest on ALL levels)? Yes, definitely, especially when I see my friends getting engaged or married. Do I feel like my life is incomplete right now because I'm not in a relationship and have never been in one? NOT AT ALL! Do I feel that I could live my life without this ever happening? Yes, I believe that I could be complete even if I never get married. There is so much more to life than marriage.
Sexual activity is not a need, it is a desire. I believe it can be a healthy thing in the correct setting, but we are living in an over-sexualized society and it repulses me. It's one reason I basically do not watch tv (besides the fact that I am too busy!!!!)
There is nothing wrong with me for not having been in a relationship. I hug my friends, get hugs from the students I teach, get the occasional shoulder rub from a friend or colleague, etc. Yes, we humans need touch, but it does not have to be sexual in any nature!
I would also like to add that one reason I have not done any pursuit of a relationship is simply that I felt I had too much to work through to put that on someone. My mom was diagnosed with cancer at this time two years ago, and for a year I watched her struggle through three different chemotherapy protocols that all failed, surgery that failed, blood clots, intestinal obstruction, kidney failure, a collapsed lung due to fluid, and finally death in November of 2010. I wasn't about to start a relationship then, I was too fragile. It's only recently that I've really felt that that might even be a possibility.
Plenty of my friends have never been on a date either, and not all of them even follow my Christian beliefs. Some of them are Christian, some are Jewish, some are agnostic, some are atheist, one is buddhist I believe. Young people in university/college from all walks of life are waiting for various reasons. This is not a black and white subject.
I might add that I don't really dance. Lol. For one thing, I'm horrible at it, and I went to a mennonite high school/junior high, so we didn't have dances. The ones that were around in my grade six middle school were too noisy for me, so I would read in the library.
I don't think there is anything wrong with me. I get hugs everyday, and will continue to do so, whether or not I am ever in a relationship. I am secure with who I am, and I believe that things will figure themselves out...if I am meant to meet someone, or pursue other options, it will become clear. For now, I'm happy being the crazy-busy fourth year music student and teacher that I am.
My university is in Canada, which I believe has a slightly lower rate of young people being sexually active. Not much, but I think about 5-10%. All studies, however, show that young people are waiting longer to become active, which I do support.
I would suggest that you double check that what you are feeling is actually you feeling this, and not what your elders/teachers/clergy expect you to feel.
BTW - It's completely possible to date and have a full social life with the activities you described.
I was involved in many of the same (although the idea of a worship "team" is rather disturbing), along with other - yet I still had time to engage my social needs.
I graduated with a 4.0 and received a full-ride scholarship plus living stipend to one of the world's largest universities, where I also maintained a 4.0 and went on to eventually get a doctorate.
So don't look at dating as something you have to trade in in order to be successful. Intimate activity, whether it is hand holding or sexual intercourse, is something that is part of life, not something that is a distraction.
Just make sure that it is you that is making this decision, and not your clergy or parents. If you are an adult, you can make these choices yourself.
If you choose to live in this manner, I will still say I disagree as I believe the religion in which you were raised has a poor and unhealthy view of women in general, but especially women's sexuality, in all the myriad ways it is expressed.
However, it is certainly your choice, and no one else's choice.
I'm sorry to hear of your mother's passing, and I do wish you well.
I don't intend any judgement against you, I just simply worry, even about strangers, when something like this is presented (although your further information does make your relationships more "normal" looking).
So, regardless of our differences of opinions, I do wish you well.
In other words...you aren't a virgin by choice.
Perhaps that's a little bit of a joke there, but seriously this story isn't about YOU. Nobody really cares. By your outrage you are suggesting that your choice is somehow superior. It is not. Sex is not dirty. It's a natural function. No other species of animal on this planet celebrates "virginity". You would likely be chased away and thought of as odd.
Kindly get over yourself.
Thank you MarineDoc. A little harsh, but I was thinking the same thing.
Listen, I'm sorry about what happened to your Mom. That's a terrible thing and my heart goes out to you for your struggles.
But, posting your many accomplishments is a little much. We get that your busy, but everyone is busy. All woman should know that you can have a healthy relationship and still be successful. If your significant other doesn't like that, then find a new one. I've broken up with two major boyfriends because, when push came to shove, they had issues with my work commitments and I don't regret it. Now, I feel luck because I think I finally found the right one for me.
MusicGirl, just for the record, I went to college prep boarding school for high school, then a prestigious university. I graduated college cum laude in 3.5 years, despite the fact that I worked nights, joined a sorority, had a boyfriend, volunteered frequently, entered photography contests, took some extra classes for fun and *gasp* even went to parties and had a social life. I secured a job a couple of weeks after I graduated and worked my way up the ranks in the media industry in Manhattan before moving on to run my own department at the company I am at now.
Girls, you can have a life and still be successful.
Man she must be an utter fat ugly dog to not have done anything!.
Easy to be a virgin at 250 and fugly.
Hardly, I am 4'9 and 82 pounds. It IS my choice, on everything. I have friends, go to parties that I WANT to, but I don't drink or do anything like that. I do have a life...for me, my life is being at my faculty, spending time with my friends there or outside doing our music activities, teaching, taking care of things at home, etc, etc.
Yes, I do plan on holding off on sex until marriage IF I ever chose to get married, which I might not. That is MY choice, not one that is REQUIRED of me. My church actually has had very little to say on the matter, and my parents besides the non-dating have basically NEVER talked about sexual activity. My decisions were my own.
I am not offended by the choices of my friends that have chosen to engage in sexual activity, it is just that, their choice. My only offense at all with the article was the general statement that ALL college-age students would have to be declared promiscuous. Because that is not the case.
I like my life. A lot, actually. I have numerous friends that I can trust and love to hang out with, I LOVE LOVE LOVE my studies at the university and my teaching career, I enjoy good books, knitting, running, sewing, cooking, volunteering, etc etc...I just think that in all of this, until now, I have not ever even felt ready to date, due to either life circumstances or sheer busyness. If I date, I want to be able to give the proper amount of time to that person. I couldn't do that in high school for one thing, and I didn't feel it was the right time when my family was struggling so much. For me, not dating has been the best decision. I have seen too many young people, especially before 18 or 19 (high school) get VERY involved with someone, only to have it break off reaaaaaaallly miserably, and have them suffering for a long time. I never saw the need to submit myself to that, and I know that that was one of the main reasons my parents didn't want either myself or my sister dating in high school. They wanted us to be able to focus our time on our friends, our studies and our other activities such as my sister's gymnastics or my flute studies.
I do take offence at the statements that I am not thinking from my own mind (I am, and always have), or that I am 'fugly'. Just because a young woman is single and is happy that way does not mean that she is either unattractive or confined by others. I might wear glasses, but that's about all all. I've definitely had compliments in the past, and even a couple of guys who wanted to go out with me, including, I might add, one now, that I have agreed to go out to coffee with. I'm not calling it a date, as I barely know him, but who knows? It could develop into something.
If others believe in freedom for their sexual actions, then I believe in my freedom to not be sexually active and to be single for as long as I feel is right for me.
As I've said many a time, I do not feel anything is wrong with me, and I like who I am. Every time I teach, or perform, or am there for someone, I really feel like that is part of who I am. And isn't liking who you are and being confident in yourself the most important thing for mental and emotional health anyways?
My personal opinion is that you are mistaking the unnatural high you get out of your addiction to religion for having a happy life.
But, that is also your choice to continue to submit.
You have too many poor excuses as to why you do not pursue romantic relationships. You have a rather backward view of what a female should be able to accomplish. You don't seem to believe that a female is capable of handling a boyfriend/husband/family along with work or school commitments.
Your views are not normal by American (either US or Canadian) standards, so when you expressive your opinion so loudly, you should expect to receive some flak.
But, it is your life.
If you chose to be married to your religion as opposed to a real human being, I can only feel sorry for you.
Wow!, Cassivella, who do you think you are? Just pure rude and insulting.
"worship team"?
musicgirl, just ignore them. They can't understand that other people don't have their point of view (which according to Piaget is immature).
--Deleted--
Does that mean I can't donate if I used both my right AND left hands?
lmao...
Cassivella, the "age of majority" is a societal construct and differs widely depending on geographic, religious and, of course, personal factors, among many others. If Music Girl and her friends have made that choice, it's a clear case of MYOB.
Well, I certainly understand it is not a biological axiom.
My point was that it is more normal for someone to be prevented from exploring their sexuality until they are 18 or so, perhaps living on their own or in college.
The social construct itself will prevent many from dating or having sex because they are afraid their parents will be disappointed.
It's certainly one thing to promise yourself you will remain a virgin until you are married, but it is a completely other thing to deny yourself any kind of "sexual" interaction such as holding hands or kissing.
Humans are sexual creatures. Once a human reaches physical maturity, there are needs that should be met.
Promising to save yourself for your husband has some merit, although many would call it an outdated concept.
Promising to not engage in any type of physical contact such as holding hands or kissing is simply not healthy for a psyche.
Studies have shown over and over that women who promise to "save themselves for marriage" have significantly higher rates of unintended pregnancy and STDs, as well.
Another thing to look at is that many people who make it through to adulthood without having any sexual contact are people who are actually attracted to the same gender but are afraid of how society/parents/church/etc. will react. So, they simply try to be asexual. It's simply not healthy to deny yourself sexual contact, and these people should look for professional help.
Again, not meant as an insult to anyone, but more as a suggestion so people know that help is available.
A small percentage of the population actually is asexual. It seems a shame to stigmatize them for their lack of desire.
Nathalia, it isn't a case of MYOB because MusicGirl posted her personal information on this forum. If she was concerned with people minding their own business, I doubt she would be commenting here. That's like people saying magazines shouldn't cover Kim Kardashian's divorce because "it's personal," despite the fact that she flaunted her marriage all over town. Ridiculous.
PH - exactly. Once someone puts their business or their opinion on a public forum - it's fair game.
AG99
Yup, I do recognise that. My brother is actually one of them.
However, asexuality is something that probably should be diagnosed by a professional, after ruling out physical problems like hormone imbalances, and after ruling out other issues such as someone who is too scared to "come out of the closet'.
Our families, religions, and other cultural factors all can press down upon (especially) young people and cause them to act in ways they would prefer not to.
I merely mentioned seeking help so that someone with what is factually abnormal (meaning it is not common or normal) sexual behaviour can realize that there is help out there if she is being forced into her behaviour by pressure from family, church, etc.
If she's cool with it, and if she doesn't have a physical ailment causing her behaviour, more power to her. But it should be her choice, not something that is forced upon her.
Have multiple family members who left their bodies to the Albany Medical Center Anatomical Gift Foundation and from what I learned , people in general who donate their bodies (or organs) in such an altruistic way (Nurses, Physicians, Airline Pilots, etc.) are usually VERY RESPONSIBLE people in life, thus the 'planning ahead.' So I do NOT see that this would be a big problem, whatever the outcome.
Good for the CDC. When I was in high school back in the 70's, we had "the talk" at school about STD's, and we were told of the dangers of syphilis and gonorrhea. Today, most strains of syphilis and gonorrhea are resistant to antibiotics. There is herpes, chlamydia, HPV, HIV/AIDS and a host of other STD's that and mutated in just 40 years because of people sleeping around. But no one wants to discuss these facts because then they would have to accept the fact that sleeping around is bad for your health and adopting a lifestyle of Music Girl is actually the better choice. Exercising self control in this age of self-gratification is not an option for most because we are a self-absorbed society that values pleasure over wisdom and discernment.
You go, Music Girl. There are a LOT more people out there that practice your lifestyle than you think. Don't let the posts here discourage you. There are many satisfied, well-adjusted adults who are content to wait until marriage before having sex.
I am sorry lifegaurd mom, People have been "sleeping around" for centuries. We have only begun to admit and talk about it openly in the last few decades. It was always happening.
And lets not forget to mention the cases and cases of infidelity. Just because a person may have been a perfect spouse doesn't mean their significant other has been and they would never know that they slept with 10 people the last 6 months.
All this would do is send more people to the grave because there are not enough donors. Faced with death or a case of herpes I'll take the herpes. And many of those STD's would be detected before the organ is put in.
Bob, I SO agree.
The real moral question here is: "should someone needing a transplant die because the donor had sex with more than one partner?". You are suggesting that people should die for your personal sense of morality. My sense of morality favors life, not death.
What kind of crap information are you trying to spread here Lifeguard? Most cases of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis are NOT resistant to antibiotics. How about learning about safe sex, such as barrier protection?
This Music Girl made a personal choice. There's nothing commendable or special about it, because having sex IS NOT some vile act. Please drag your brains into the 21st century. And again I would appreciate it if you wouldn't so carelessly spread bad, false information.
"This Music Girl made a personal choice. There's nothing commendable or special about it, because having sex IS NOT some vile act. Please drag your brains into the 21st century. And again I would appreciate it if you wouldn't so carelessly spread bad, false information."
MusciGirl said nothing about sex being a vile act. But did point out the value of virginity to the process of untainted organs. Not sure why as a "supposed" medical professional you might even take issue with this. There's nothing to dispute.
As for LifeGuard Mom, she's obviously relaying her opinion much as you did, sans the flame throwing. In the 21st century that's what people do.
MarineDoc:
Just some studies showing the increase of STD's resistant to medications:
And regarding barrier protection - I have a daughter (sponge), a son (condom) and another daughter (condom).
Lifeguard,
Please let me stop you right there. I've treated those diseases on many occasions. I'm not even going to get into a debate with you about this. You just need to stop talking. Right now, because you don't know what you are talking about or are lying.
If you have children after having "used condoms" you are a prime example of someone who needs to be educated on their proper use. I don't care how hard, the sex is...a condom is NOT going to break if used properly. The fault is your ignorance, not the condom. And if you want to use a personal experience anecdote...I'm 43 years old and have been using condoms since I was 18. I have NEVER gotten a woman pregnant while using a condom, nor has one ever slipped, broken, torn or anything else.
I agree, MarineDoc.
While sponges aren't very effective for birth control on their own (they are intended to be used with a condom), condoms are very effective when used correctly.
It's really statistically impossible for someone to get pregnant twice if using condoms correctly.
Most people, however, have no idea how to use condoms. This is a good reason why sex ed should be in our schools. Everyone should see the banana demonstration. LOL
I agree. I've never had a condom break ever. Used correctly, condoms will work.
Cassivella makes a great point - we need to teach our children how to use protection. However, in order to do so, we need to get off the abstinence kick and accept the fact that teenagers and college kids are going to have sex. The people who refuse to acknowledge the reality of sex today are doing their kids a great disservice.
Organ transplantation is a last option for many people. So, if I was in that position would I say no to the organ of a 20 year old just because he or she may have had more than one sexual partner in the last year? Absolutely not. You have no idea when or if another match will come along in time. I wonder if the recipents are informed what makes an organ high risk or if they are only told that they are a risky transplant.
I don't know, Hepatitis-B or C, versus death. Hmmm...I think I'll take my chances with Hepatitis and go from there.
If anyone has the links to studies - only peer reviewed, please - that shows that individuals who've had more than one sexual partner in the last 12 months are at a confirmed higher risk, then I might agree.
Not that my opinion matters, but I would like to see the scientific basis. I'm pretty sure there isn't one, but I'm willing to admit I could be wrong.
So tell it to the patient who needs that heart, liver, or other body part in order to continue living.
Sex is everywhere these days and dangled in front of our kids like candy on a rope. Just turn on any prime time TV show.
Try turning off the prime time shows, or any other show that conflicts with your personal beliefs. I'm single, late-20s and I don't practice the behaviors of those on TV, music and movies.
Entertainment is not a substitute for personal responsibility.
I more surprised that only NOW CDC is considering putting Hep B and C on the must test list. This should have occurred well before now.
As for their current list of criteria the CDC should know better as every thing they are concerned about has a rapid sensitive test to determine if the disease agent is present or not. Not to mention ignoring the fact that you yourself may have had only one partner that year but who is to say your partner has, thus exposing yourself to everything your partner has.
This is a naive set of guidelines from an institution I would have thought better of.
I completely agree except my opinion of the CDC is already low. This is another instance of bureaucrats putting the public at risk.
Better get your transplants now, they're about to become a LOT more scarce!
Two partners a year? That's ridiculous, you could be in a coma for a year and have more partners than that, lol!
This is silly. Of course, the organ donor should be tested for Hep. A,B,C, AIDS, etc, but not based on how many partners they have had-all those sicknesses can be contracted through not sexual contact-tattoos, sharing needles, or many other ways-stop making the hospitals moral police-it is none of their d@mn business!! We have an extreme shortage of organs already-why do people have to meddle in it to make it worse?!
What if they practiced safe sex and blood tests found no evidence of STDs?
Besides, you may have only one partner but who is to say your partner's not sleeping around on you? How would you know if this is the case? This makes no sense.
I know that if I were dying, I'd rather take a chance on organs from a "promiscuous" person, which may be clean, than to die a sure death.
Another biased story from the ever-liberal MSNBC news staff...the title insinuates that have 2 or more sex partners in a year is not only normal but so normal that the very mention of promiscuity is absurd. Well let me set the record straight --- if you have had more than one sex partner in a 12 month span---you are by definition promiscuous.
Please show me the definition of promiscuous that backs this up.
Wow Declaytor yours is another biased statement from the ever-conservative individuals wanting to impose their set of morals on everyone.
Well let me set the record straight-if any one has had more than one sex partner in a 12 month span---it is by definition none of your business.
Krestov: No one cares what you do or who you sleep with, they just want to know the likelihood of contracting some illness if you choose to donate your organs. Seems reasonable to consider the issue since the institutions doing transplantation have liability from tainted organs and infected patients.
That said, Is the new "standard" a bit stifling, probably. She's not a big fan of MSNBC, and she didn't write the article, she's just interpreting it. And it seems to me that her view is correct.
Don't like the conclusion? It is what it is. Take it up with the CDC.
Rick,
I'm not sure I understand your post. Declaytor's post has nothing to do with the CDC or the article. It has nothing to do with transplants or medical ethics. It's merely an opinion about promiscuity that he/she is trying to pass off as a finite judgement to the offense of many.
Rick,
I was parroting Declaytor's post not decrying the CDC nor MSNBC, the only miff I have with the CDC is that they were not testing for Hep B and C before this which is an absolutely crazy thing not to be doing.
Why can't would-be donors just be required to take annual tests to determine their risk factors? Not only would this lead to a healthier population, but then we also wouldn't have to have blanket regulations that really have no basis in reality.
PH: requiring annual testing would drive many would be donors (even perfectly healthy virgins) off the rolls of already inadequate donor lists.
The issue is not that the donor is potentially risky, its that the medical system needs to be able to get test results faster in order to determine if a donated organ is viable. While it is more probable that a person who has multiple partners will get an STD, even monogamous persons can get a potentially deadly disease.
That's a great point, dirp, and your probably right. I was only thinking that I would be more than happy to take annual tests in order to be a donor if it meant the process was safer. I guess not everyone would think that way...
I agree with PH, I'm on the donor list, it is on my driver's license; I'd be willing to have additional testing at my annual physical, and have the results entered into a national database, if it meant making the system safer. After all, we're doing this to help another person, or persons; why not make it a safe and efficient as is prudent.
Requiring potential donors to do something every year would greatly lower the number of donors. Far more people would die waiting for organs than would ever have complications due to infection.
All organs should be screened-there are so many risk factors for the diseases named beyond sex. Considering that the VAST majority of organs from people with 2 partners will be safe-this seems like the foolish side on which to err.
@ Cassivella: I think it is really sad that all of you are saying that she is wrong for not having a sexual relationship. So are you telling your kids (if you have any), you better go out and sleep with someone because if you don't there must be something wrong with you and you will need professional help!
I don't think anyone is saying that Mike. I think what people are saying is that MusicGirl is clearly in the minority. She was offended that the article pointed out that many college students have multiple partners. No matter what MusicGirl does in her personal life, it is true that many college students have multiple partners. To take personal offense at the reality of this situation because she has chosen her lifestyle is silly and naive.
I would never tell my kids to go out and sleep with people but I'm not going to put my head in the sand about it happening either. I do think it is healthy for teenagers to explore romantic relationships and there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding hands. People need human contact and tough. That's one of the most innocent, yet exciting, things to happen for young adults.
Mike,
I think I already answered you elsewhere.
I am not talking about sexual intercourse.
I am saying it is not healthy for someone who is of sexual maturity to not have had at least one relationship where like/love was physically expressed by hand holding, hugging, kissing, etc.
@Cassivella: I disagree with you only because some people just prefer to not have any physically-intimate contact with others based on religious, spiritual, or any otherwise personal beliefs.
In my opinion, the only unhealthy physical or lack of physical contact is that which occurs because of non-personal influence or events, i.e. rape, brain-washing or abuse.
Sex and physical intimacy are part of the human experience, but it's not a requirement. If a person goes to his/her grave with their virginity, never having kissed someone or held hands romantically, it's completely their choice and is not necessarily an unnatural or unhealthy choice. If a person goes to their grave having had one or more partners, but used condoms, dental dams and/or birth control and got tested regularly and didn't contract a disease, then it's also their choice is not necessarily an unnatural or unhealthy choice.
ithad
I explained my view more thoroughly on the previous thread (this one was orphaned as Mike did not hit reply).
My point was exactly that - that women should make sure it is their choice to not have physical contact.
However, I would say that religious beliefs and brainwashing can be similar. A woman should be sure that she chooses to follow a religious system that tells her she should not touch other humans.
Safety must be placed ahead of everything else. Perhaps people should be implanted with chips at birth that record all events they experience. One shouldn't have to take the risk that they are lying about their behavior. Our government is helping us with this by removing all human rights so they can implant those chips. We can only hope that the chips will record even the briefest impure thoughts. Be honest, do you really feel safe now? Of course not! Only when we are all implanted will you be safe.
Crusher: we know who you really are and where you are. Take your hands off the keyboard, step back and put your feet on the yellow footpints. We will be with you shortly...... Big Brother cares for you.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343/
To promiscuous to donate an organ!Maybe says the CDC.Then there's uncomfortable questions maybe asked.
Poooooooolease,I have all I can do to stomach the STUPIDITY!
You actually think somebody donating an organ is going to discuss their sex life with you?Forget it!You're not going to sit around the family table with mom,pop,sis and your grandmother, grandpa,oh and I forgot your brother to discus how many partners you've been with.UNLESS YOU'RE AN IDIOT!People won't discuss it with a doctor let alone your family.Any least any sane person wouldn't do it unless they've caught some STD.
MBSMBC comes up with these stupid stories and comes up with the quote WELL MAYBE!
You know what why doesn't somebody writing these idiot articles and come up with something just a tad more with facts and some real meat and potatoes in it
This article is just stupid!
They do it for blood donation all of the time. There are clearly questions you can ask to obtain sufficient information to gauge likelihood of risk. That said, it's smarter to test and then use rather than rely on donee information.
The US transplant system as operated by the private gobernment contractor, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) already makes ECD (Expanded Criteria Donor) organs available in the system. This is a class of organs which in the past have been considered unsuitable for transplantation. Hundreds have already been transplanted into patients. The problem is: the patients are not being provided with the medical and/or pathological history of the organ. They are not then able to give fully informed consent as to accept or reject the organ for transplantation.
Anyone should be able to be an organ donor as long as prospective recipients are fully informed! They are not being so informed now. Dozens of people have been unsuspectedly transplanted with contaminated organs. There are numerous law suits presently working their way through the courts on behalf of the families of patients who died as a result of receiving these organs. Just within the past 2 months two large kidney transplant programs have been shut down in Florida and Pennsylvania because of using contaminated organs.