Sex! Sex! Sex! Please! Can I have your STI identification card first.
- Thread starter Hazzard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Wait , why would i want to sleep with/date , someone with a STD? Hell i ask that question from go . If i date someone and for a few days or weeks without having sex , then when the time comes they tell me i they have an STD, i'm kicking them to the curb! I would be hella pissed that i wasted my time .not_you said:
OT: I would think it's a good thing , however , people lie and you couldn't really trust them to tell you regardless if they have a card or not . So use protection .
archiebawled said:
Or get pregnant. And a condom isn't a 100% guarantee. It's generally a safe bet, but you are, in fact, taking that risk. And it's a risk that gets bigger if you do something stupid like keep one in your wallet for months at a time without swapping it out. Again, if you use a condom, you're probably safe, and it's probably a risk that won't land you with the negative end of the stick. But if it does, well, it was your choice. And besides, the premise of this thread is that a way of identifying people with STDs would be a good idea, when a condom already takes care of it. The only purpose of an "STI identification card" would be to identify people who it's not safe to have sex with without a condom, as if that could ever be a safe thing with strangers, who if you can't trust to tell you if they have an infectious and easily transmitted disease, you can't trust to be fastidious with the birth control, either. Assuming they're female and you're male, at least. Reverse the genders and at least you'd know whether you were on birth control or not. But then the other party wouldn't and /they'd/ be an idiot for not insisting on a condom.Daggedawg said:
Edit: And for the sake of inclusion, I didn't mention male on male/female on female because obviously pregnancy is not a factor in either of those cases. Disease, however, is, and the lack of worry about pregnancy, and the subsequent eschewment of condoms in the days before AIDS had been identified is the reason why it's so heavily associated with the gay community today. Up until the late 70's, humanity kind of figured we had cured all of the serious STDs. Then AIDS pops up and suddenly we have to be scared about that again, instead of just pregnancy. So basically, always use a condom, whether you have to worry about pregnancy or not.
Buddy, you latched onto one word I said and must have glazed over the rest of my post because it hurt your feelings or something. Read it again. The naivety stems from the echos of "if you sleep with a lot of people you'll get an STD" I never even talked about the idea of an STD card.Yopaz said:
Which is also Naive.
I did read your post a couple of times actually. Your point wasn't clear. Also in what way did you hurt my feelings? Considering I did not post in the thread before you there is no way you could have referred to me.aPod said:
Also "Someone who sleeps with a lot of people has an increased risk of getting a disease" simple statitics. You can get one if you sleep with one person too, but the more you sleep around the higher the risk gets. People also said you should use protection when sleeping with strangers. How is advising caution before choosing to have sex naïve? Even if we eliminate sex completely we can never be 100% sure to avoid getting an STD. We're never completely safe, sure, that doesn't make advising precautions naïve. We could as well say it's naïve for people at nuclear plants to wear safety gear because it's no guarantee they won't be completely safe anyway.
Edit: Also I assumed you were talking about the STD card because that was the point of the thread. Basically your post wasn't about the topic at all, but rather an insult to those who posted before you.
Hell, I use condoms even when I am in a long-term committed relationship. Pregnancy is not something to fuck around with, and birth control pills are awful (at least they were for me).ERaptor said:
I have used over 1000 condoms over the years, and I have never had one break. Ever. I should have had at least 10 according to statistics.amaranth_dru said:
Honestly, I think that 99% thing is just ass-covering so the company doesn't get sued when people act stupid. The only condom mishap that I've ever experienced was the direct fault of the guy wearing the condom.
No. It doesn't.amaranth_dru said:
Do you realize how insane that sounds? Someone gives you an awful disease - possibly an incurable one - and you are claiming that the victim in that situation can't be upset about it? Yeah, no. The person in question has every right to be upset about the situation.
Oh, and your smoking/cancer bit was bullshit as well. If you get cancer, you are not going to be all stoic about it - you're going to be upset that you're dying. Only a sociopath wouldn't be upset by something like that.
I ask all the time. I don't know why people laugh so much.Colour Scientist said:
But to mirror what others have said, this is why you practice safe sex.
I want to know why I should worry about idiots who shag people who they don't trust enough to trust their integrity... If I doubted someones integrity like that I wouldn't conduct any form of extreme socialising with them...
I feel I have to interject here, because there seems to be some confusion with regards to how STIs function and the value of protection in that regard - and its rather worrisome.
Condoms are certainly going to help protect against transfer of some diseases, however, diseases are transferred in bodily fluids - and wearing a condom doesn't magically stop body fluid transfer.
Condoms are 99% effective in blocking pregnancy, not fluid transfer - its a physical barrier to keep male ejaculate (containing sperm) from getting into the female reproductive tract.
And given that fact, it does have SOME value in terms of blocking disease transfer... but nowhere near the 99% of pregnancy blockage.
There are diseases that can penetrate the condom, for one thing, meaning they offer little-to-no protection in that regard. And, as mentioned, condoms sometimes break, posing another hazard.
But there's another aspect of this I feel some folks are totally missing...
Now, I don't know what kind of sex you folks are having, but in my experience, even with a condom, body fluid contamination of various bits of your body is generally going to happen - a lot.
Unless you're having, like, the lamest sex ever, this stuff - particularly in the case of female fluids - is going to be getting all over the place on your partner: on their face, on their non-condom'd crotch, on their hands. And on plenty of other places/things depending on exactly how freaky your deaky may be... aky.
And most diseases don't immediately die upon exiting your body - they can survive awhile, especially if sheathed in a layer of protective bodily fluids. Things that come in contact with that fluid then become a vector for transfer of the disease.
Say, for example, you condom up and have sex, and chances are (again, unless you're really lame) your fingers make the trip to Vajajay-ville. Then you go to take the condom off.
*ANNOYING BUZZER SOUND* You may have just been infected, your fingers having become a vector for transfer during your bedroom romp. Likewise if, say, your partner goes down on you or you go down on them - something not terribly common with a condom on - then the two of you make out a bit, and make another trip down south.
I could go on with these theoretical scenarios, but I'm sure you get the idea.
To put it rather bluntly, there is no such thing as 'safe sex' when it comes to STI transfer, unless you're talking about knowing someone well and trusting them fully beforehand... or using some kind of crazy full-body condom.
Or, as previously mentioned, having the lamest, most robotic sex imaginable.
Remember kids - its the fluids that contain the nasty bad stuff, and if you get that fluid on something, that something then has the potential to pass whatever is in the fluid to other areas that something touches.
Now you know - AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE!
Oh, and uh, I'd be okay with the STI card/branding thing, I guess, to some degree. It seems like a difficult issue to 'police' effectively, as many people with STIs dont realize they're infected, but its a move towards a requirement for transparency with regards to this issue that I feel would be better for our society on the whole.
Condoms are certainly going to help protect against transfer of some diseases, however, diseases are transferred in bodily fluids - and wearing a condom doesn't magically stop body fluid transfer.
Condoms are 99% effective in blocking pregnancy, not fluid transfer - its a physical barrier to keep male ejaculate (containing sperm) from getting into the female reproductive tract.
And given that fact, it does have SOME value in terms of blocking disease transfer... but nowhere near the 99% of pregnancy blockage.
There are diseases that can penetrate the condom, for one thing, meaning they offer little-to-no protection in that regard. And, as mentioned, condoms sometimes break, posing another hazard.
But there's another aspect of this I feel some folks are totally missing...
Now, I don't know what kind of sex you folks are having, but in my experience, even with a condom, body fluid contamination of various bits of your body is generally going to happen - a lot.
Unless you're having, like, the lamest sex ever, this stuff - particularly in the case of female fluids - is going to be getting all over the place on your partner: on their face, on their non-condom'd crotch, on their hands. And on plenty of other places/things depending on exactly how freaky your deaky may be... aky.
And most diseases don't immediately die upon exiting your body - they can survive awhile, especially if sheathed in a layer of protective bodily fluids. Things that come in contact with that fluid then become a vector for transfer of the disease.
Say, for example, you condom up and have sex, and chances are (again, unless you're really lame) your fingers make the trip to Vajajay-ville. Then you go to take the condom off.
*ANNOYING BUZZER SOUND* You may have just been infected, your fingers having become a vector for transfer during your bedroom romp. Likewise if, say, your partner goes down on you or you go down on them - something not terribly common with a condom on - then the two of you make out a bit, and make another trip down south.
I could go on with these theoretical scenarios, but I'm sure you get the idea.
To put it rather bluntly, there is no such thing as 'safe sex' when it comes to STI transfer, unless you're talking about knowing someone well and trusting them fully beforehand... or using some kind of crazy full-body condom.
Or, as previously mentioned, having the lamest, most robotic sex imaginable.
Remember kids - its the fluids that contain the nasty bad stuff, and if you get that fluid on something, that something then has the potential to pass whatever is in the fluid to other areas that something touches.
Now you know - AND KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE!
Oh, and uh, I'd be okay with the STI card/branding thing, I guess, to some degree. It seems like a difficult issue to 'police' effectively, as many people with STIs dont realize they're infected, but its a move towards a requirement for transparency with regards to this issue that I feel would be better for our society on the whole.
I started this post a few times and I guess I kind of hit a wall because I had to stop and delete it each time. The main point from my several attempts seemed to boil down to the fact that you've not really thought this through. People do tend to self quarantine when they're ill and most people won't go near those that are visibly ill, the problem comes when an illness is infectious before the symptoms present. In most cases where someone catches an STI they'll only know when either symptoms present or when they get a test, most people who have sex with an STI don't know they've got one.Hazzard said:
Or this basically. Full marks on being both informative and entertaining.Dark_Reaction said:
Are you crazy? They'd just cover it up and go on.DANGER- MUST SILENCE said:
Clearly what we need is some kind of camp where we can concentrate the problematic individuals so they don't go about spreading their diseases amongst the normal people. Maybe give it some sort of uplifting slogan to keep their morals high, something like "antibiotics shall set you free".
Quaxar said:
lol you say that though I just imagine instead a guy gets drunk around his mates, they all go to a tattoo place and make the guy get a tattoo of this "im a STI carrier" mark. Guys life is pretty much screwed.
Not being the drinky type, or the sleep around type either for that matter, i can see problems with it.
Mark on guys inner thigh? Wear boxers and let your pointy friend poke out the front, cant see that symbol when there is fabric in the way.
Mark on girls inner thigh? well better hope that guy likes a bit of, i believe the best ever description is muff-diving or he might be too horny or drunk to notice.
As mentioned pretty early in the thread if people use fake IDs for alcohol already whats stopping people having fake STI cards, or if you only have a card if you have an STI if you dont take your card out with you then you "are clean".
Or are we talking having sex licenses, issued to you on the day you turn (insert legal age of your country here) that if you get an STI you get suspended if its curable or disqualified if its not? Because to be fair thats a freaking hilarious idea that id love to see English politicians deal with.
Wouldn't work. I spent a while trying to figure out ways it would but there no way people would comply which is the main problem. I mean technically you should be doing a lot of things before you when engage in physical contact with a person but must of those suggestions are so stupid that no one follows them.
It is than. On a side note though not everyone is American and has to worry about "The constitution"wackymon said:
Thank you, I was just about to make a post about how there seems to be this misconception that condoms are some magical safety barrier that makes sure you can't get an STI. If you sleep around with a lot of strangers, even if you use a condom, your risk of infection goes way up. Not trying to slut-shame, but that's just how it is. Blame the 60s.Dark_Reaction said:
If THAT is a real thing, than people should also begin considering checking the ID Cards to avoid (at least to a safer extent) an unexpected allegation of statutory rape from the "victim's" parents or something...
I say that because this is a thing statutory Rape is a serious crime, but it has a hell of a breech in that it does not walk hand in hand with modern society and the "innocence" of certain youth.
Edit: forgot a comment on the subject, Here in Brazil, as long as you have ANY sort of transmissible disease, and you purposely let it spread to people around you, you're committing a crime. Example: you have a STD, you KNOW that, you don't tell the sexual partner, nor do you take any precautions that you should, it's considered that you purposely infected that person, you can now be sued... Of course, nowadays it's pretty hard to point the finger to whom is responsible...
I say that because this is a thing statutory Rape is a serious crime, but it has a hell of a breech in that it does not walk hand in hand with modern society and the "innocence" of certain youth.
Edit: forgot a comment on the subject, Here in Brazil, as long as you have ANY sort of transmissible disease, and you purposely let it spread to people around you, you're committing a crime. Example: you have a STD, you KNOW that, you don't tell the sexual partner, nor do you take any precautions that you should, it's considered that you purposely infected that person, you can now be sued... Of course, nowadays it's pretty hard to point the finger to whom is responsible...
I think there should be full disclosure if someone knows they have an STD and legal repercussions if they fail to inform their partner of this information before sex, but I don't think requiring an identification card would be effective at enforcing this.
No, not insane at all. Insane is sleeping around with people WITHOUT GETTING THEM TESTED. In a world that STI's are prevalent in the casual sex crowd, NOT getting your partner tested is just stupid, and therefore taking a risk. And you can't make a judgement on how I handle things in life, and its not sociopathic behavior for someone to be accepting of the consequences of their actions. Its called MATURITY and INTEGRITY. Does it mean I won't fight it? No, but I won't be surprised if it happens, nor will I be freaking out over it.Bara_no_Hime said:
There are many places you can go to get tested and your partner tested for STI's, a lot of them for FREE. But hey, if you just can't wait to get your rocks off you are taking a risk no matter if you use a condom or not. Chances are less with the rubber, but they're still chances. Risk vs. Reward, and I do feel the reward isn't worth the risk.