Sex! Sex! Sex! Please! Can I have your STI identification card first.

[tstorm823]

Also, nobody here is lying to shame people who encourage abstinence. We're telling the truth about how the programs that /only/ teach about abstinence are politically motivated propaganda tools that require the people teaching them to lie like rugs.

See, that isn't true.

"Abstinence from sex is the only way to completely ensure a lack of STDs and pregnancies. Therefore everyone should be practicing abstinence until such a time they find a long-term relationship."

Hey look, I just taught abstinence only without lying at all.

The problem with abstinence only education is that it isn't educational enough. Telling kids to abstain without all of the context is like teaching kids to eat their vegetables without teaching them about nutrition, which is fine for a small child, but isn't going to work when they get old enough to make decisions. They're going to go "screw vegetables" and eat like crap.

But the point is that the people teaching abstinence only are trying to do what they think is best, they're just dumb about it. They aren't lying, fearmongering turds the way you think they are. It's not a politically motivated propoganda tool, it's an attempt at helping the many modern, sexually based issues.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

smooshing their junk against a stranger's junk

This is the most juvenile way you can describe sex.

You think?

You're imagination isn't very good then

It implies some sort of misguided edgy contempt against the most intimate human to human interaction of all.

Why would I show contempt for my most favourite of past times?


Sure you're not deflecting?

 

[Bertylicious]

Really we need to invent a better prophylactic mechanism than putting my penis in a plastic bag.

So have we reached the part of the debate where we start talking about 'good' AIDS and 'bad' AIDS?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Smoking doesn't cause cancer.

CLEARLY it extends life. Smoke up.

smooshing their junk against a stranger's junk

This is the most juvenile way you can describe sex.

You think?

You're imagination isn't very good then

It implies some sort of misguided edgy contempt against the most intimate human to human interaction of all.

Why would I show contempt for my most favourite of past times?


Sure you're not deflecting?

The way you said it was infantile.

smooshing their junk against a stranger's junk

This is the most juvenile way you can describe sex.

You think?

You're imagination isn't very good then

It implies some sort of misguided edgy contempt against the most intimate human to human interaction of all.

Honestly, sex and intimacy aren't the same thing. I'd know, some of my sex has been the most intimate thing ever and some of my sex was the kind of thing where I could argue a handshake would feel more intimate. And then I'd wonder why the hell I saw fit go through all the hassle of the mating rituals if the same result could have been achieved with considerably less effort. And I'm not even a romantic type.

I didn't say it wasn't open to abuse.

Well thank you for saving me from my own immaturity, I'll be sure to take it into consideration the next time I decide to indulge in the lesser used vernacular ¬_________¬

 

[FoolKiller]

Seems unfair on everyone else that one person with Herpes doesn't have to tell anyone if they were to go round sleeping with anything with legs and nobody has any way of checking before hand other than taking their word for it.

I don't know about where you are but in Canada you can be charged with sexual assault if you don't disclose a known STI to a partner before having sex with them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Or maybe people shouldn't go smooshing their junk against a stranger's junk without any form of protection.


Of course not, that would be silly, that would require initiative.

There is no protection short of no contact for herpes. A condom will protect your penis but it won't stop the area at the base from getting herpes.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Smoking doesn't cause cancer.

CLEARLY it extends life. Smoke up.

Wow, you're one of those. Smoking doesn't extend life, nor does it cause cancer. It causes cancer in the same way crossing the road causes you to be hit by a car. If you never cross roads, you'll likely never get hit by one but the more roads you cross, the statistically higher the chances are that you could be. There's no guarantee. Smoking and drinking do *not* cause complications in pregnancy, they increase the risk of complications in pregnancy. There are pregnant women out there who continue to do both to whatever degree and have perfectly healthy children and responsbile mothers who do neither but do have complications.

On the flipside, there are healthy, if not outright fit people and athletes who get health issues. DVT for a fit and healthy young woman on plane, footballers who have heart attacks mid-game, people who've never smoked in their lives developing cancer.

There is a world of difference between correlation and causation and you seem unable to tell them apart.

 

[Nomad]

Also, nobody here is lying to shame people who encourage abstinence. We're telling the truth about how the programs that /only/ teach about abstinence are politically motivated propaganda tools that require the people teaching them to lie like rugs.

See, that isn't true.

"Abstinence from sex is the only way to completely ensure a lack of STDs and pregnancies. Therefore everyone should be practicing abstinence until such a time they find a long-term relationship."

Hey look, I just taught abstinence only without lying at all.

The problem with abstinence only education is that it isn't educational enough. Telling kids to abstain without all of the context is like teaching kids to eat their vegetables without teaching them about nutrition, which is fine for a small child, but isn't going to work when they get old enough to make decisions. They're going to go "screw vegetables" and eat like crap.

But the point is that the people teaching abstinence only are trying to do what they think is best, they're just dumb about it. They aren't lying, fearmongering turds the way you think they are. It's not a politically motivated propoganda tool, it's an attempt at helping the many modern, sexually based issues.

Abstinence from sex does not completely ensure a lack of STDs and pregnancies. Going around bleeding in eachother's wounds is just as big a risk, and requires no sexual contact. Likewise, in vitro fertilisation can get you pregnant even if you're still a virgin. That puts a lie right in the first sentence of your quote.

The second sentence, where you're not so much making a factual claim as issuing a recommendation, just makes no sense. Why would a relationship being long-term prevent pregnancy? Hell, statistics would probably tell you the opposite.

The problem with abstinence is that it's silly. Sex is not dangerous. Sex is not evil. Sex will not make god torture you for eternity. If you abstain from safe sex as a safeguard against the miniscule risk of getting a disease, then just go put on a hazmat suit right away, because someone in your vicinity is bound to have a common cold. If you breathe their air, you may get infected. Now, if you abstain because you don't want to have sex, that's completely fine and another matter entirely. Abstinence as a pregnancy/disease-barrier is just odd.

 

[ninjaRiv]

There's a carpet shop in a town nearby called "STD carpets." I thought everyone should know that.

As for the topic at hand, some way to check would be good. It's very uncool to sleep with someone knowing full well you have a disease.

But... Condoms are a thing that can be used. Pretty stupid of someone to ignore that.

 

[Vegosiux]

Honestly, sex and intimacy aren't the same thing. I'd know, some of my sex has been the most intimate thing ever and some of my sex was the kind of thing where I could argue a handshake would feel more intimate. And then I'd wonder why the hell I saw fit go through all the hassle of the mating rituals if the same result could have been achieved with considerably less effort. And I'm not even a romantic type.

I didn't say it wasn't open to abuse.

I said nothing of abuse. Consensual mutual masturbation (or "sex for the sake of getting off" if you want) is not abuse of sex. It's just not the kind of sex I generally favor, those that do, the more power to them.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I think there's a difference between catching an airborne illness, like a cold, and catching the clap 'cos you shagged someone without the proper precautions.

Elaborate. Please.

You have protected sex for the same reason you don't eat food you just found on the street. You have no clue what kind of danger it houses.

You're equating willing sex partners to refuse?

A better analogy might be food you get from a restaurant or a street vender. Inspectors are too scarce and can't cover every vector from which pathogens can be spread (and they can't stop your wait staff from spitting in your food) so you end up having to trust a number of people from the suppliers to the servers. But you end up having to trust, and determining whether or not you can trust someone is part of that whole courting process.

Of course, I don't know you. You might eat only food you've picked and prepared from your own garden. Still, I doubt you'd be so accusatory of those who did not for not sterilizing food prepared by strangers.

You also evidently have no clue what kind of danger (say) a street-car houses, yet you seem to find it more acceptable to ride a crowded one (from which you're likely to be bombarded with more pathogens) than from a frantic fluid-exchangey tumble with a stranger). No, this sounds like you have issues not with diseases, but with the act of sex, itself.

Also, signing your posts? Really? ¬_________¬

Too classy a net-chic for your tastes?

238U[footnote]As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States.
Encrypted with Morbius-Cochrane Perfect Steganographic Codec 1.2.001
Friday, October 04, 201312:14:44 PM
cereal reward conference wave bottle clippers novel chess[/footnote]

 

[Daystar Clarion]

snip

What happens if everyone stops using public transport or eating at local restaurants?

I'll let you have a guess.

I'm not suggesting people approach every sexual encounter like they're about the handle a goddamn radioactive isotope, only that they use their best judgement and ask question of their soon to be sexual partner.

I wouldn't eat from a back alley food vendor, and I'd take the proper inoculation and cleanliness precautions during the height of flu season. The same way I'd make sure I was protected during sex from someone I know very little about.

Being cautious is not a negative personality trait.

As for signing posts? You already have your username next to your post. Proceeding to sign it is like having a smaller name tag, on your name tag. Peculiar.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

As for the topic at hand, some way to check would be good. It's very uncool to sleep with someone knowing full well you have a disease.

I think what slows down this kind of deception is that sex is (for most) an exchange of intimacy and trust. On the other hand there is something hot about betrayal, but the fact that it's betrayal by subjecting someone to an infection puts something of a tamper on that hotness for most. (Usually betrayal fantasies are about cheating or cuckolding or boffing forbidden partners.)

Here in the states (some of them, at any rate) if you knowingly expose someone via fluid exchange to an incurable infection or a potentially lethal one, that can be grounds for homicide charges. Premediated murder has been the verdict in some cases.

Of course there will always be twisted fucks who will eroticize infecting others, but that's rather rare, like those who get off on crush videos.

There's a carpet shop in a town nearby called "STD carpets." I thought everyone should know that.

In the 70s and 80s it was VD for venerial disease to the annoyance of veterinary doctors. These days, it's STDs and STIs very much the way that mononucleosis was the kissing disease (in the 50s and 60s, an era where kissing was shorthand for sex the way that exposed breasts are now).

The carpet shop will at some point yearn for the sex jokes when the popular acronym moves on.

But... Condoms are a thing that can be used. Pretty stupid of someone to ignore that.

By most, yes. Here in San Francisco, there are numerous places to get free condoms, though in more conservative states, it can be a considerable chore acquiring them, when even the local pharmacy doesn't carry them. In nations controlled by the RCC? (e.g. all of South America) Slim chance.

In my own case, condoms are so much of a hassle that I usually have adopted an "everything but" policy when it comes to new partners with ambiguous histories. As a plasma doner, I also get tested like a porn star (which is to say, monthly) and would then fluid-bond with my primary partner (if we weren't entirely exclusive).

238U[footnote]As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States.
Encrypted with Morbius-Cochrane Perfect Steganographic Codec 1.2.001
Friday, October 04, 201312:1:14:16 PM
game cheese seal silence artist mite idiot guitar[/footnote]

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

crap. duplicate post.

 

[ninjaRiv]

As for the topic at hand, some way to check would be good. It's very uncool to sleep with someone knowing full well you have a disease.

I think what slows down this kind of deception is that sex is (for most) an exchange of intimacy and trust. On the other hand there is something hot about betrayal, but the fact that it's betrayal by subjecting someone to an infection puts something of a tamper on that hotness for most. (Usually betrayal fantasies are about cheating or cuckolding or boffing forbidden partners.)

Here in the states (some of them, at any rate) if you knowingly expose someone via fluid exchange to an incurable infection or a potentially lethal one, that can be grounds for homicide charges. Premediated murder has been the verdict in some cases.

Of course there will always be twisted fucks who will eroticize infecting others, but that's rather rare, like those who get off on crush videos.

There's a carpet shop in a town nearby called "STD carpets." I thought everyone should know that.

In the 70s and 80s it was VD for venerial disease to the annoyance of veterinary doctors. These days, it's STDs and STIs very much the way that mononucleosis was the kissing disease (in the 50s and 60s, an era where kissing was shorthand for sex the way that exposed breasts are now).

The carpet shop will at some point yearn for the sex jokes when the popular acronym moves on.

But... Condoms are a thing that can be used. Pretty stupid of someone to ignore that.

By most, yes. Here in San Francisco, there are numerous places to get free condoms, though in more conservative states, it can be a considerable chore acquiring them, when even the local pharmacy doesn't carry them. In nations controlled by the RCC? (e.g. all of South America) Slim chance.

In my own case, condoms are so much of a hassle that I usually have adopted an "everything but" policy when it comes to new partners with ambiguous histories. As a plasma doner, I also get tested like a porn star (which is to say, monthly) and would then fluid-bond with my primary partner (if we weren't entirely exclusive).

238U[footnote]As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States.
Encrypted with Morbius-Cochrane Perfect Steganographic Codec 1.2.001
Friday, October 04, 201312:1:14:16 PM
game cheese seal silence artist mite idiot guitar[/footnote]

Yes yes, these are all great points. Very interesting. The important thing is YOU CHANGED THE ORDER OF PARAGRAPHS IN MY POST. What's wrong with you?!?

In all seriousness, though, I didn't know Vets were pissed about VD. That's pretty interesting!

But you obviously don't have enough patience if you think condoms are a hassle... I dunno, man, I find them easy enough. Like putting on a rubber sock. Unless you mean they're a hassle because you live in one of those places you mentioned with the lack of rubbers...

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Also, nobody here is lying to shame people who encourage abstinence. We're telling the truth about how the programs that /only/ teach about abstinence are politically motivated propaganda tools that require the people teaching them to lie like rugs.

See, that isn't true.

"Abstinence from sex is the only way to completely ensure a lack of STDs and pregnancies. Therefore everyone should be practicing abstinence until such a time they find a long-term relationship."

Hey look, I just taught abstinence only without lying at all.

The problem with abstinence only education is that it isn't educational enough. Telling kids to abstain without all of the context is like teaching kids to eat their vegetables without teaching them about nutrition, which is fine for a small child, but isn't going to work when they get old enough to make decisions. They're going to go "screw vegetables" and eat like crap.

But the point is that the people teaching abstinence only are trying to do what they think is best, they're just dumb about it. They aren't lying, fearmongering turds the way you think they are. It's not a politically motivated propoganda tool, it's an attempt at helping the many modern, sexually based issues.

Have you ever actually attended an abstinence only sex ed class? Or are you basing this on your idea of what "abstinence only" means? Because telling kids to abstain without all of the context is exactly what abstinence only sex ed is. What context they /do/ give is mostly lies.

Edit: Would you be more comfortable if I said "religiously motivated" instead of "politically motivated?" Because both are true, but at least the former might make more sense to you. It /is/ a religiously motivated attempt to scare kids away from having sex, that is a fact. It's also politically motivated because fundamentalist christians (excuse me, "evangelicals") hold a huge sway over the republican party in particular, and US politics in general. They have since the days of Reagan. You'll notice that it's pretty much exclusively Republican controlled states that use abstinence only.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

What happens if everyone stops using public transport or eating at local restaurants? I'll let you have a guess.

What has that got to do with anything?

I'm not suggesting people approach every sexual encounter like they're about the handle a goddamn radioactive isotope, only that they use their best judgement and ask question of their soon to be sexual partner.

Here, we're in agreement. And I think that is what people do.

Granted, I think best judgement is generally rather lax, also that our sexual-shame culture has made it more difficult for us to talk openly about things (e.g. consent, protection, testing, contraception, other current partners, kinks, emotional concerns, et. al). I'd like to see flirting, courtship and general relating be added into our comprehensive sex education, since we are really bad at it. But that whole process is for establishing compatibility, which includes trust.

I wouldn't eat from a back alley food vendor, and I'd take the proper inoculation and cleanliness precautions during the height of flu season. The same way I'd make sure I was protected during sex from someone I know very little about.

Here in San Francisco, we have really good back-alley food vendors, so to each their own, and even fancy restaurants can relate escherichia-coli-soiled raw foods to their guests before the outbreak is reported. But the risk is still low. In the bay area, though, street food is worth a bout of indigestion, let alone the slight risk of food poisoning.

Being cautious is not a negative personality trait.

No, but being overly cautious about one vector and then ignoring other vectors is self-defeating, if not hypocritical. It's like using a toilet seat cover yet not washing your hands after handling money.

Sex is notorious for being a disease vector mostly due to militaries and travelers catching illnesses from carriers in one isolated region and passing them on to others most effects of which have been prior to germ theory and centralized disease control. Note that it was infections during WWII (Malaria, primarily) and the polio epidemics of the 1950s that drove us into creating the modern system of disease control organizations that we have today, and yes, granted, even diseases for which we have treatments still run rampant in those parts of the world outside the reach of that system. (Within, we have vaccine-denialists but that's a different subject.)

These days, sex with strangers is safer than ever. We're more aware of the infections we can catch but we can treat most of them. Of course, we still want to be cautious, not for merely the risk of getting a disease but because affairs of the heart leave us vulnerable. It's still not appropriate to be blaming people for sleeping around because they caught a bug that way.

If you do want to be concerned, there are real horrors out there. MDR-TB is still giving us a fight. The next killer influenza is always around the corner. And Malaria and Yellow Hemorrhagic fever make the mosquito the number-one monster of the world (when it comes to body count by fauna). A supergerm could wipe out humanity, and new candidates are mutating every day. (An ELE scenario is unlikely but plagues of the future are inevitable.) HIV is so rampant in Africa that it's inadvisable to exchange fluids anywhere near the whole continent. As I noted before, the Pope didn't help much in that regard, but Africa is a whole lot of complicated.

As for signing posts? You already have your username next to your post. Proceeding to sign it is like having a smaller name tag, on your name tag. Peculiar.

Peculiar? Agreed. Extraordinary? Not really. Signing also functions not just as a form of identification but certification, especially in our current era of surveillance and privacy issues being in flux. But it's a habit I continue to indulge, especially when it means I can practice my markup-fu.

238U[footnote]As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States.
Encrypted with Morbius-Cochrane Perfect Steganographic Codec 1.2.001
Friday, October 04, 201312:1:28:37 PM
madman ipod cottage capital motorcycle chimp fare clove[/footnote]

 

[RaNDM G]

Should people carrying STI's have to carry some way of identifying they have them if they want to have sex.
Seems unfair on everyone else that one person with Herpes doesn't have to tell anyone if they were to go round sleeping with anything with legs and nobody has any way of checking before hand other than taking their word for it.

Yes. Should anyone acquire a sexually transmitted disease or virus, regardless of whether it was through consensual sex, rape, or a condition acquired at birth, they should wear some kind of identification. With any luck, government mandate will require the infected to wear badges or stars on their coats so we can easily and readily identify those we cannot tolerate. It's not our fault wanting to protect ourselves. It's theirs' for not protecting themselves beforehand.

I think you know where I'm going with this. I can't tell if this is an honest question or a baited thread, but the violation of privacy and hateful bigotry that happens when society encourages this shit ruins innocent lives. I can't speak for whatever town you live in, but in most Western countries there's this thing called "doctor-patient confidentiality". People have a right to their private lives, and unless you plan on engaging intercourse, what they have to deal with is none of your business.

Here's the best protection from STDs: Don't screw around. If it's the first time you're spending with someone, ask if there's anything you should worry about. Use your best judgement. If you know they're lying, or even if you have doubts, don't go through with it. Simple.

 

[ShipofFools]

I just use a condom. What is this thread, I don't even?

 

[Relish in Chaos]

How about you just put on a rubber?