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

[LetalisK]

DANGER- MUST SILENCE nailed it. In all cases other than sexual transmission, we blame the disease. We blame the conditions. We blame our centralized disease control services for not prioritizing well. But when it comes to sex, suddenly it's the fault of the participants: They shouldn't have been doing that icky thing and it's their fault for doing something naughty.

Edit: Oooooh, never mind. I was thinking of the original OP question, not the specific poster arguments you were responding to. Disregard. DISREGARD, I SAY!

 

[tstorm823]

You said that lying in order to promote abstinence held the moral high ground over sex education and promoting safe sex. Your entire position hinges on the fact that having sex is inherently less moral than abstinence. Which is absurd.

You're missing something big here. I said that lying to promote abstinence preventing STDs holds the moral high ground over lying to shame abstinence education. It's not over sex, it's over lying to promote sex. Since both involve lying, go ahead and strike that off of both sides, and look at the new sentence "promoting abstinence to prevent STDs holds the moral high ground over sex."

Saying condoms let some diseases pass through is a lie, but an accidental one with the goal of preventing horrible diseases. Saying the claim above is a lie meant to manipulate people through fear that is actually backfiring and causing more trouble is a lie meant only to mock the first group, especially since condoms don't prevent all STDs, it's just that the mechanism of subverting the condom isn't straight through it. Who is worse, the person who slightly misunderstands molecular science, or the person who is just being insulting?

Going by his last post, he apparently considers sex to be equivalent to heroin use. You can't argue with people like this, they're either trolls or they honestly believe it, and it's a case where the troll would be the more comfortable explanation, but honestly believing it is, sadly, more likely.

So you don't get analogies? You don't get comparing one "body recreation that people can enjoy that comes with a giant load of baggage including the possibilty of AIDs that can be almost completely prevented through safer practice but that doesn't eliminate the other major downsides regardless" because I scaled up the seriousness of the situation deliberately in order to more sharply illustrate the point I was making? That's a shame, since it seems you gave up on discussion and teaching without analogies takes a lot more time.

They ignored HPV until it was discovered to have given countless women cervical cancer.

How dare they not address that particular virus among the millions we encounter every day until it actually posed a problem! We sould be proactively destroying EVERYTHING that might live inside of us!

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You said that lying in order to promote abstinence held the moral high ground over sex education and promoting safe sex. Your entire position hinges on the fact that having sex is inherently less moral than abstinence. Which is absurd.

You're missing something big here. I said that lying to promote abstinence preventing STDs holds the moral high ground over lying to shame abstinence education. It's not over sex, it's over lying to promote sex. Since both involve lying, go ahead and strike that off of both sides, and look at the new sentence "promoting abstinence to prevent STDs holds the moral high ground over sex."

Saying condoms let some diseases pass through is a lie, but an accidental one with the goal of preventing horrible diseases. Saying the claim above is a lie meant to manipulate people through fear that is actually backfiring and causing more trouble is a lie meant only to mock the first group, especially since condoms don't prevent all STDs, it's just that the mechanism of subverting the condom isn't straight through it. Who is worse, the person who slightly misunderstands molecular science, or the person who is just being insulting?

Going by his last post, he apparently considers sex to be equivalent to heroin use. You can't argue with people like this, they're either trolls or they honestly believe it, and it's a case where the troll would be the more comfortable explanation, but honestly believing it is, sadly, more likely.

So you don't get analogies? You don't get comparing one "body recreation that people can enjoy that comes with a giant load of baggage including the possibilty of AIDs that can be almost completely prevented through safer practice but that doesn't eliminate the other major downsides regardless" because I scaled up the seriousness of the situation deliberately in order to more sharply illustrate the point I was making? That's a shame, since it seems you gave up on discussion and teaching without analogies takes a lot more time.

They ignored HPV until it was discovered to have given countless women cervical cancer.

How dare they not address that particular virus among the millions we encounter every day until it actually posed a problem! We sould be proactively destroying EVERYTHING that might live inside of us!

Problem: Heroin may be enjoyable at first, but like smoking, it will kill you eventually, and unlike smoking, just trying to quit can actually kill you. The drug itself is dangerous, the effects of shared needles is a secondary concern at best. Sex is not like that at all.

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.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

Edgy? Nah, try crude and goofy. That's the kind of description the writers of cracked.com use all the time, for no other reason than it's funnier than just saying "fucking."

 

[VanQ]

If we're going to be forcing people to identify whether they have an STI or not, I think you'd be better off with some kind of ID that can't be conveniently left at home or counterfeited. Maybe a branding on some place near their genetals, where it can be hidden from prying eyes but can't be hidden from any potential victims.

 

[Vegosiux]

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.

On the OP tho; I might not be in favor of "ID cards for STD carriers" because the pragmatist in me would cry tears of blood over a ridiculous waste of resources on something that can't possibly work because, who the hell is going to enforce it? Every citizen has a state-sanctioned chaperone appointed at all times to make sure they both show and are shown the respective "STD status identification" every time they want to get frisky or something? And what do we do when the chaperones themselves want to get in on the fun?

Still, personally I'd prefer to know what health risk my potential sex partners present. And no, I'd not be offended in the least if I was asked about it. (In fact, that's happened more than once, and I don't understand why some people see it as a "mood killer")

Dumbest thing ever. Can you imagine smooth-talking a girl for a night and right before you bang her she is obligated by law to show you that she has herpes?

No way would any rational human ever be in favor of this.

Imagine how much it's gonna kill all the future moods after she's given you herpes and you're subjected to that nasty annoying and unpleasant skin condition that can break out at any time, seriously. If she "kills your mood" you should thank her because she just saved you from a cruel, cruel fate. Bring a condom next time.

 

[Gormech]

If the carrier has sex with an unkowing person and infects them, that person should be allowed to press charges.
The carrier should be obligated to notify people that they intent to have sex with of their condition beforehand.

Doing otherwise is akin to a form of assault, poisoning, and with the more serious diseases: attempted murder all in an attempt to gain personal satisfaction.

 

[DementedSheep]

I?m pretty sure not telling someone you are planning on having sex with that you have a STD (if you know you have it of course) is illegal already. I think if it's a life threatening one you can even get charged with attempted murder.

If you make it card people who are already not informing others about it just won?t carry it. Who is going to enforce this and how? Unless you make people get tested every year and then tattoo it on them (I'm not saying we should try and do that) it?s not going to solve anything.

 

[Herman Hedning's mace]

It doesn't matter if their hearts are in the right place, they're still lying. If you use false information to get your point across, even if you don't know that it's false, it will undermine your position when the truth is revealed.

But why worry about undermining points? The people running abstinence only education aren't here. This is a casual discussion of a subject. Why bring up something about a non-present opponent just to try and make them look bad while they aren't defended. Why did something easily resolved as "that's a common myth, here's what's actually true" have to be dragged on with "that's a common myth... deliberately spread by fearmongoring tyrants getting more teenagers pregnant!"

I didn't mean that. I apologize if I'm unclear.

I didn't bring it up to make them look bad. The reason I brought it up was that you said that the motivation of their lies is in the right place. And that may be true, but using lies to promote a cause is not right. I don't think the people who use this information are using it deliberately to spread misinformation, it's more likely that it's a misunderstanding.

My problem is that you said that it's okay to lie in order make a point. But this is WAY of the original topic, and I apologize for that.

 

[waj9876]

If people lie and don't show that they have an STI card? Press charges. The STI card is proof that they knew about it beforehand. It may not stop people from lying, but unless they get rid of it, which would only make it worse as they've effectively destroyed evidence, it can only act as proof that they have committed a crime.

I'm going to state my opinion now. Based on what I've read in this thread, some people may not like it. As apparently, unprotected sex is the devil's work, and no one should inform others about any diseases they may have. Especially if they're going to be trading bodily fluids.

People who knowingly spread around an STI and do not inform their partners, are just behind rapists morally. This is a seriously fucked up thing to do. And is physically worse than rape. As the consequences are so, so much worse. Mentally and morally, maybe not quite as bad. But physically it's worse than rape.

Off Topic: So. Am I the only one calling bullshit on all of this apparent sex people in this thread are having? We're on a fucking gaming website. And yet pretty much everyone posting here "Totally has a ton of sex all the time. With many, many different people."

 

[Adultism]

Hot damn I read this first page and jumped to the reply box, probably everything solved by now blah blah don't sleep with strangers but I just wanted to put in my two cents.

Why don't we just make it so people with STDs can only have sex with other people with STDs?

Also when people correct others without saying anything else to them, just derping, bad move. Its just sad man, worry about other things other than perfect grammar.

EDIT: Don't be so hard on OP, some girl/boy probably gave him/her a STD leading to him making this post. Really sucks but you shouldn't go around waving your junk

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Maybe they should have ID cards for people who post stupid ideas on internet forums. Seems unfair on everyone else that one person with stupid ideas doesn't have to tell anyone if they were to go round posting stupid ideas on any forum with users.

Smoking causes cancer, safe sex doesn't cause STDs.

Smoking doesn't cause cancer. Smoking increases the risk of cancer. There are millions of smokers who've died of old age and never got cancer. Correlation /= Causation.

 

[Vareoth]

Exactly. We shouldn't shame a person who has an STD if they got it from being raped. That's what I was trying to get across.

Don't worry, I understand where you're coming from now. I wasn't taking this topic seriously at all. It's just a really bad idea to start with. Not to mention the logistical impossibly of implementing it with all the patient confidentiality and human rights business.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I never once used the word deserve, I only said its a stronger possibility due to the actions taken.

Well, to help clarify a little, what you said was

Sleeping around also means you give up the right to complain if you get an STD.

Which can be taken to mean that you think someone who gets an STD in that situation deserved that outcome, because you say they have no right to feel upset about it.

It's less that you used the word 'deserve' and more that your chosen wording has certain implications.

I am aware that people read things differently, and construe meanings from how/what I say. I forget sometimes to say that I'm straightforward with what I say, I don't have hidden meanings or anything. All I really wanted to get across and I'll admit I get sidetracked on my way to a point is that sleeping around no matter how "safe" you may try to be still increases the chances you'll get an STI/STD unless you are proactive enough to get your partner tested before you sleep with them.
In my experience people will forgo the smart thing to do in need for instant gratification. And because of that when people complain later that they got an STI/STD it seems just a bit foolish because you should always know the inherent risks of what actions you take. I don't feel sorry for them, but I do pity them. We don't live in a safe world, and everything you choose to do has consequences. Taking some responsibility for what you do and the consequences thereof just seems to me to be more mature than acting as if it was the universe shitting on you.
I make exceptions for things like the malicious jerks/jerkettes that have STI's and sleep around to spread them intentionally, those people who are infected by these fuckwads are victims. Also people who are in a relationship and their respective partner cheats on them and gets an STI and subsequently gives it to their significant other are another exception.
In the end though, I say that a condom isn't enough to say you're 'safe', and taking the extra precaution of getting potential partners tested is the smartest thing to do. Due diligence is respectable. Acting without thinking of the possible consequences is just foolish. No one deserves an STI/STD, that was never my intention to even imply that. I just have trouble feeling sorry for people who sleep around and get infected. The information is out there, there are ways to ensure you're truly being safe and with diseases like HIV/AIDS still being prevalent, being absolutely careful is the smartest thing to do.
With that said, I feel everyone is free to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others. I did sleep around a lot in my youth, I'll admit, and I did use a condom every damn time and I didn't get partners checked for diseases. But I feel like I'm lucky as hell I never got a disease. And I feel I was foolish as hell for not following through on due diligence.

 

[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?