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

[Owyn_Merrilin]

http://www.positive.org/Home/faq/truth.html

It's a myth, apparently based on a study done in the 90's about latex gloves, which as it turns out are produced to much less exacting standards than condoms are.

And it really does get spread around by abstinence only sex ed classes, it's a lie that's aimed at making people afraid of having sex, but instead just encourages kids who plan on having sex anyway to drop the condoms, since they were just told they don't work.

Funny, that last part sounds to me like a lie aimed at making people ignore abstinence as an option. At least the motivation of their lies is in the right place. They want less STDs, you want people to have lots of sex, I think they take the moral high ground at least.

And while there's a general failure of abstinence only education, it's clearly not a fault of abstinence. It's a combination of the "only" part and environmental factors as abstinence promoting nations in Africa have shown the best results fighting AIDs.

And while the latex condoms may not be permeable to STIs, that's not going to stop you from proudly joining the genital Herpes club when it passes by adjacent skin contact.

If you can all recognize the misnomer of "clean coal" you should be able to understand the misnomer of "safe sex." The millions of infected or having unintended pregnancies aren't all just dumb or uncareful. The safest sex is still a very real risk to weigh in your priorities.

Wow, projecting, much? I think abstinence is a great thing, I'm just not naive enough to think that everyone on the planet does. It's better to give information about how to use condoms and birth control to kids who are going to have sex anyway, than to just tell them sex is evil and, oh by the way, if you do have sex, don't bother with birth control or condoms, because neither works and they're just a waste of money.

 

[Herman Hedning's mace]

Funny, that last part sounds to me like a lie aimed at making people ignore abstinence as an option. At least the motivation of their lies is in the right place. They want less STDs, you want people to have lots of sex, I think they take the moral high ground at least.

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.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Legally they have to inform the other party. An ID card for people with STD's wouldn't make sense because its not as if someone will not believe someone else has an STD. If someone asks, and you have an ID card, you could say you don't have that as well as you could say you don't have an STD.

 

[Abomination]

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.

If STI marks are common knowledge your partner should have the common sense to demand to see you pantsless. Hell, I won't have sex with anyone if I can't see their genitalia in full.

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.

Same as above. If they're too drunk to recognize the sign of a STI even if it's right in their face they probably shouldn't be getting so shit-faced in the first place.[/quote]

 

[Something Amyss]

And while there's a general failure of abstinence only education, it's clearly not a fault of abstinence. It's a combination of the "only" part and environmental factors as abstinence promoting nations in Africa have shown the best results fighting AIDs.

Could be because there are other major issues fighting AIDS in Africa. I mean, that's a pretty disingenuous comparison, especially when you had a large body of people who listened to the Pope's line on birth control and as such did not use condoms.

But then, so is the "abstinence-only" thing above. I'm pretty sure nobody is saying to kids "hey, go out and fuck! Here's some condoms to make you invincible!"

So how is lying to kids to scare them a moral high ground? Especially since they ARE pushing abstinence only, which results in the same outcomes but with less preparation.

 

[Daverson]

Completely ridiculous. Would you ask someone to show you a card certifying they don't have any number of communicable diseases before shaking their hand?

Now, if you're a smart person, you're probably thinking "But Dave, I'm a smart person, I've had the flu/common cold/Griswold's Bonerot several times, and the person who infected me probably didn't even know they had the flu/common cold/Heinrich-Williamson Nasal Dampness Syndrome at the time!". A lot of people get STDs and don't know, that's how they spread. How are you going to catalogue these people and get them on your database, if they have absolutely no reason to approach your STD-card issuing agency? Mandatory STD tests for everyone? (and that's ignoring the people who get STDs and spread them out of spite, which is a whole other can of worms...)

 

[Tanis]

You...can't be serious, can you?

People LIE all the time trying to get laid, why wouldn't they just lie/forge a card?

Hell, I've had people LIE about their AGE (younger/older/whatever)...
You think these people won't lie about their STDs?

 

[Something Amyss]

Completely ridiculous. Would you ask someone to show you a card certifying they don't have any number of communicable diseases before shaking their hand?

Well, as the saying goes, no glove no love.

They probably didn't mean hand-shaking, but I will conveniently interpret it that way.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Putting words in my mouth isn't very smart. I never once used the word deserve, I only said its a stronger possibility due to the actions taken.

**rereads your old posts**

Huh. You're right. You didn't say that. However, you did imply it a bit with all those "fucks!" and capital letters. I think it is your overall attitude about the subject that I am finding so distasteful. You seem to be looking down on those who sleep around - even those who do so safely.

I disagree with your comparison to smoking. Every single cigarette damages your body. There is no such thing as a "clean" cigarette (well, unless you go electric, and not even then 100%). It is literally impossible to smoke actual cigarettes safely.

On the other hand, if you only sleep around with people who are free of STDs and you use protection, you cannot get an STD. The trouble is knowing which partners are or are not safe. Part of that is judgement - knowing enough about your partners to judge how safe they are - and part of it is the use of one or more types of protection. While it is technically true that condoms have a failure rate, that rate is far less than a true 99% - that is there for ass-covering reasons and to cover user-error (and using expired condoms).

I have slept around plenty, but I do it safely. I have been sleeping around for 15 years and I am STD free.

Meanwhile, someone who has been smoking for 15 years has done significant damage to their lungs. That's just a medical fact. If you smoke long enough, you will, eventually, have medical problems because of it. However, you can sleep around all your life and never get an STD.

That is one (of several) reasons I take offense to your comparison.

Another is this - cigarettes say right on the package that they are harmful. However, if someone lies to your face and says that they have been tested and are STD free - and they then give you something - then it is not your fault, but theirs, because they hid medical information from you that impacted you. In that example, you have every right to be upset that someone lied to your face and gave you a disease.

So yes, if you choose to smoke cigarettes knowing that they will harm you, and you get cancer, you can hardly expect anything else. You certainly have a right to be upset, but it would be a bit hypocritical to be surprised.

However, if you practice safe sexual practices and get an STD because someone lied to you and knowingly infected you, then you have every right to get angry at them. That would be like someone intentionally injecting you with cancer cells - an intentional and malicious act on the part of another person that harms you.

So there's that as well.

As to the emotional stuff, if you look at my original mention of that, I wasn't actually suggesting you were a sociopath - I was saying that emotional responses are normal. Your statements seemed to indicate that you felt any emotional reaction showed weakness or immaturity. You have since clarified your stance to a state of control. Fair enough.

I disagree with you about that point - I don't see any problem with being emotional about an emotional situation - but that's more philosophical and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[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

 

[tstorm823]

Wow, projecting, much? I think abstinence is a great thing, I'm just not naive enough to think that everyone on the planet does. It's better to give information about how to use condoms and birth control to kids who are going to have sex anyway, than to just tell them sex is evil and, oh by the way, if you do have sex, don't bother with birth control or condoms, because neither works and they're just a waste of money.

Well what is the difference between a lie that diseases penetrate condoms and a reality that they often just go around them to someone who doesn't know what's the truth? Pretty much nothing, if you ask me. You very strongly suggested that the idea that is factually wrong but practically accurate leads youth to make bad decisions. You said that telling them condoms aren't perfect leads to more kids having sex without them, but the thing is that is true that condoms aren't perfect. So either kids who are taught about condoms are being lied into good things (which I'll let people who responded to me handle whether that's right or not) or they have that information that condoms are not perfect. So I have to ask why you focus in on this statement so much. Is it doing any damage? Almost certainly not. The difference is not in being told condoms might not work, it's in not being able to get them and use them correctly. So why choose the innacurate but harmless statement to focus on? Because it's a way for you to discredit those who are teaching abstinence only. You're goal in pointing out these things can't be to be as helpful as possible because the penetrable condom nonsense is completely insignificant, you're just trying to make others look bad so that people won't listen to them which clearly puts you in the "sex with a condoms is good enough" crowd with many of the people here. Does that contradict almost all of what you've said in the thread? Yes. Which means you're percievably disregarding your own opinion for the sake of slandering people.

There is no justification for spreading misinformation, and no moral high ground to be had while lying. Kind of disturbing that people think there is.

Moral high ground is relative, I'm sure you'd pick the liar over the serial killer any day.

And this is setting up a false dichotomy - either you have less STDs or lots of sex - which is ridiculous, cause you can have sex only once and catch an STI, and you can have sex hundreds of times a year and never have a problem.

Also, you're implying that somehow having lots of sex makes you immoral, which is equally ridiculous.

I never said either of those things. You can compare the goals of two groups without making people pick one. One group is helping at the food bank and the other is cleaning up a public park, am I setting up a false dichotomy?

And I didn't say anything about sex being immoral (although it's not rediculous to say that because the entire premise of this thread is that it can be immoral depending on the situation.)

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!"

So how is lying to kids to scare them a moral high ground? Especially since they ARE pushing abstinence only, which results in the same outcomes but with less preparation.

To be fair, I was calling it the high ground over opponents who also lie acting like abstinence education is hateful lies. You want disingenuous, start at "it's a lie to spread fear!"

I'm pretty sure nobody is saying to kids "hey, go out and fuck! Here's some condoms to make you invincible!"

Should I start pulling quotes from this thread, actually, I will!

"Or you could just wear a rubber when you fuck someone."

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

"Wear protection. There we go."

"Honestly, I think that 99% thing is just ass-covering so the company doesn't get sued when people act stupid."

I also remember a quite questionable Public Service Anouncement on MTV where they had an ice cream truck in New York handing out free condoms to teenagers on the streets. (who else could get away with filming themselves encouraging sex amongst possibly minors using an icecream truck?)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Wow, projecting, much? I think abstinence is a great thing, I'm just not naive enough to think that everyone on the planet does. It's better to give information about how to use condoms and birth control to kids who are going to have sex anyway, than to just tell them sex is evil and, oh by the way, if you do have sex, don't bother with birth control or condoms, because neither works and they're just a waste of money.

Well what is the difference between a lie that diseases penetrate condoms and a reality that they often just go around them to someone who doesn't know what's the truth? Pretty much nothing, if you ask me. You very strongly suggested that the idea that is factually wrong but practically accurate leads youth to make bad decisions. You said that telling them condoms aren't perfect leads to more kids having sex without them, but the thing is that is true that condoms aren't perfect. So either kids who are taught about condoms are being lied into good things (which I'll let people who responded to me handle whether that's right or not) or they have that information that condoms are not perfect. So I have to ask why you focus in on this statement so much. Is it doing any damage? Almost certainly not. The difference is not in being told condoms might not work, it's in not being able to get them and use them correctly. So why choose the innacurate but harmless statement to focus on? Because it's a way for you to discredit those who are teaching abstinence only. You're goal in pointing out these things can't be to be as helpful as possible because the penetrable condom nonsense is completely insignificant, you're just trying to make others look bad so that people won't listen to them which clearly puts you in the "sex with a condoms is good enough" crowd with many of the people here. Does that contradict almost all of what you've said in the thread? Yes. Which means you're percievably disregarding your own opinion for the sake of slandering people.

There is no justification for spreading misinformation, and no moral high ground to be had while lying. Kind of disturbing that people think there is.

Moral high ground is relative, I'm sure you'd pick the liar over the serial killer any day.

And this is setting up a false dichotomy - either you have less STDs or lots of sex - which is ridiculous, cause you can have sex only once and catch an STI, and you can have sex hundreds of times a year and never have a problem.

Also, you're implying that somehow having lots of sex makes you immoral, which is equally ridiculous.

I never said either of those things. You can compare the goals of two groups without making people pick one. One group is helping at the food bank and the other is cleaning up a public park, am I setting up a false dichotomy?

And I didn't say anything about sex being immoral (although it's not rediculous to say that because the entire premise of this thread is that it can be immoral depending on the situation.)

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!"

So how is lying to kids to scare them a moral high ground? Especially since they ARE pushing abstinence only, which results in the same outcomes but with less preparation.

To be fair, I was calling it the high ground over opponents who also lie acting like abstinence education is hateful lies. You want disingenuous, start at "it's a lie to spread fear!"

I'm pretty sure nobody is saying to kids "hey, go out and fuck! Here's some condoms to make you invincible!"

Should I start pulling quotes from this thread, actually, I will!

"Or you could just wear a rubber when you fuck someone."

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

"Wear protection. There we go."

"Honestly, I think that 99% thing is just ass-covering so the company doesn't get sued when people act stupid."

I also remember a quite questionable Public Service Anouncement on MTV where they had an ice cream truck in New York handing out free condoms to teenagers on the streets. (who else could get away with filming themselves encouraging sex amongst possibly minors using an icecream truck?)

Actually, I said that telling kids condoms have flaws that do not exist, flaws that make them effectively useless, is a lie that will encourage kids not to bother with them. And there's a pretty good bit of evidence that it does in the fact that states that use abstinence only education have higher rates of teen pregnancy than states that have comprehensive sex ed -- an important part of which is the proper use of a condom. So tell me again how it's better to lie to kids about the effectiveness of condoms than it is to explain to them how to use them effectively? Especially when your own argument about how they're not very effective hinges on the fact that they're not very effective when they're used improperly. Your solution is to just tell kids that they're dangerous and therefore they shouldn't have sex. Mine is to recognize that they're going to do it anyway, and show them what those proper methods are so they don't make their behavior even riskier.

I honestly find it sad that you're acting like /I'm/ the one who lies in order to make an ideology look better or worse. That would be what abstinence only ed does. It serves no purpose except to salve the conscience of the ultra religious[footnote]Edit: Funnily enough, they have no problem with lying in this instance, despite "thou shalt not lie" being in the same set of commandments as "thou shalt not commit adultery," and much more prominent than the more specific laws that deal with things like pre-marital sex.[/footnote], with negative effects that are blatantly obvious to anyone who actually looks at the statistics.

 

[tstorm823]

Actually, I said that telling kids condoms have flaws that do not exist, flaws that make them effectively useless, is a lie that will encourage kids not to bother with them.

But it's a lie that amounts to the truth. Nobody is saying that condoms don't stop most preganancies. Only the craziest of people claim that condoms don't reduce risk of infection. The truth is that condoms do leave a very large risk of infection with many STIs, and I don't think you really believe that fact is making kids ignore condoms except when it help you complain about abstinence only education.

And there's a pretty good bit of evidence that it does in the fact that states that use abstinence only education have higher rates of teen pregnancy than states that have comprehensive sex ed -- an important part of which is the proper use of a condom. So tell me again how it's better to lie to kids about the effectiveness of condoms than it is to explain to them how to use them effectively?

I don't even understand what you're doing with this. Why doesn't abstinence only education work? Because the kids who would use condoms anyay have a harder time acquiring them and don't know the proper usage. You acknowledge that, and then instead demonize people for pointing out the flaws in condoms. You acknowledge right here that lack of proper usage education is the problem and then double down on picking at the lying part. It's just nonsense.

I honestly find it sad that you're acting like /I'm/ the one who lies in order to make an ideology look better or worse.

But it's really easy when you are. It doesn't matter what they're doing. If you're lying, you're lying, and you are lying. Does pointing out the failure rates of condoms in preventing things lead to more pregnancies and STIs? NO! You don't even believe that, you're just taking the opportunity to fling mud at a group for doing something you don't agree with that is tangentially related.

Your solution is to just tell kids that they're dangerous and therefore they shouldn't have sex. Mine is to recognize that they're going to do it anyway, and show them what those proper methods are so they don't make their behavior even riskier.

And this is just a problem. It's like you're saying "you're solution is to tell people that geroin is dangerous and they shouldn't do it. Mine is to recognize that they're going to do it anyway, and to show them how to sterilize the needle." Telling them not to do it should always be the first and most important step, and pretending that step is useless is not helping anyone.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

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.

What about rape victims that get a disease through said rape? I know it's happened before.

I'm failing to see how rape is relevant to this topic...

Surely it would be nothing but courteous of the would-be raper to state any pre-existing medical conditions before commencing the sexual abuse in question.

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.

We shouldn't shame a person with an STD PERIOD.

OT: I am against the forced tattooing of the inner thigh as well as any law which interferes with consenting couples (or triples, or quadruples) in the bedroom. Some things just need to be left unregulated like nature intended.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Disclosure: I only read the first page.

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

Don't want an STD? STOP SLEEPING AROUND!!! I mean, fuck... how is it people still miss the fucking idea that STD's are spread due to promiscuity?

If you don't want herpes, then don't have unprotected sex with strangers. Problem solved.

Let's try these for size, shall we, gentlemen?:

Maybe people shouldn't go to work without protection.

Don't want an infection, DON'T TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE!!! I mean fuck... how is it people still miss the fucking idea that diseases are spread through people being close to each other?

If you don't want Malaria, then don't go unprotected into the tropics. Or the Pacific Rim. Or the southern half of Africa. Or most of Asia.

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.

In the real world, people have sex. And in the real world, our disease control authorities are supposed to regard even sexually transmitted diseases (such as Hepatitis and HIV) with the same vigilance as dangerous airborne diseases (such as influenzas). The CDC ignored HIV in the 80s and now it's a pandemic. They ignored HPV until it was discovered to have given countless women cervical cancer. These are real risks, because those of us who were not sexual creatures (and able to turn away when attractive, willing partners came along) died out long, long before we walked upright. People don't choose to have sex any more than they choose to eat. And, people who are sexually active are statistically healthier and more emotionally grounded than those who are celibate (by choice or otherwise). Yes, we've had over a millennium of Roman Catholic anti-sex propaganda influencing our cultures. It's time we got over it. Sex outside church or state certification is not morally wrong.

There are still churches and religious activist institutions that actively push to draw funding away from the treatment of STIs just as they actively push to make contraceptives and protection such as condoms scarce. (Note pope Ratzinger's speech claiming that condoms are a greater threat to the people of Africa than HIV.) Just as the same organizations actively push to take away health options from women. STIs are an issue not because too many people are promiscuous, but because some institutions believe people should be punished and discouraged from having sex. And they are willing to slow research and suppress treatments in order to further this agenda.

Maybe if we didn't have huge religions trying to enforce their values on the rest of us, a case of HIV or Hep-C or Herpes would be more or less treated like an encounter with tetanus.

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
Thursday, October 03, 2013 5:58:36 PM
oil measure tea bag stool flea salad ears scarecrow[/footnote]

 

[Daystar Clarion]

snip

Dat false equivalence...


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.


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.

Also, signing your posts? Really? ¬_________¬