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

[Abomination]

snip...

We don't tell drivers on the road to just "be more careful" in case there are drunk drivers out there - as in people who have a condition that excludes them from driving because it is dangerous to others when they drive... similar to how people with STIs should be excluded from fornication while they have their condition since they endanger others the most when they engage in fornication.

What justification is there for a person with an STI to have free reign to have sex with anyone they so desire WITHOUT any obligation to warn those they will have intercourse with? We aren't talking about colds, we aren't talking about the flu or conditions that can be treated very easily. If an individual is diagnosed with a dangerous contagious disease or a highly-contagious and debilitating disease do you know what happens? They are detained in a medical facility until they are deemed no longer dangerous to the public. Individual's rights be damned - they're dangerous to the rest of the society they operate in.

Branding the inside of a person with an STI's thigh is a marker in a location that someone who is going to engage in fornication would be able to see but discrete enough that someone who is not going to engage in fornication would not be able to see. It would only "restrict" the individual in a scenario where they should be restricted or where their partner should be entitled to the knowledge the brand conveys.

We (as coming from someone that does live in the United States) actually DO tell people to "be more careful" in case there are drunk drivers out there. We are told to watch out for people going too fast, not stopping soon enough, and swerving because they might be drunk. We know to be more careful around 2 am when most bars close and/or stop serving alcohol, and during holidays that typically encourage people to get drunk.

As cute as your misplaced and probably undeserved national pride is, how proud can you really be if they missed this obvious and easy step to helping people be safer on the road (which incidentally, auto accidents are the most likely thing to kill you until you get old enough to start worrying about heart attacks and cancer).

The problem with what you propose is that it would greatly discourage people from getting tested. Fewer people would know their status and the benefits of testing would be rendered moot. Or are you saying that you wouldn't resent being required to be tested even though you will claim that you didn't have un-safe sex or any sex at all. Surely you don't expect us to trust you when you've said you don't have sex. Why that's exactly what someone who has but doesn't want to be tested would say.

No, there is something disturbing about this level of governmental intrusion into people's private lives, and the fact that you seem to welcome it so enthusiastically. Especially considering that just wearing a condom makes it all rather unnecessary. I know it must be unsettling to your ego to consider that you might have to change something you do to suit the world rather than the world changing to suit you, but hey we all get over that sort of thing eventually.

And yet, with driving, the onus isn't on the non-drunk drivers. The onus is squarely on the drunk drivers. Be as careful driving as you normally would be, not because of drunk drivers, but because cars are inherently dangerous. You don't apply MORE caution because there could be drunk drivers. You also don't wave blame at someone for getting hit by a drunk driver with "You should have used protection" or "You should have been more careful".

We haven't missed any step with drunk driving. Our advertising campaigns are focused towards discouraging drunk driving and our court systems punish drunk drivers almost as heavily as intentional assault/murder.

The same people who would be discouraged from getting tested are the same people who wouldn't tell their partners they had an STI anyway. I most certainly wouldn't resent needing to be tested. Women already need to be tested before they can apply for birth control pills.

Government intrusion into people's lives? The very idea that someone with an STI is labeled as having an STI in a manner that only those who would be likely to fornicate with them could see the marker? The government already intrudes in our lives in order to keep us fat, happy, subservient, safe, taxpaying citizens. Why in this case where someone is going to endanger someone else shouldn't the government take steps to avoid it? Because it's a bit "personal"? It's strange when a government is willing to spend so much more on punishment of crime over prevention of crime.

The strangest thing about freedom is that you pay for it with other freedoms. I would rather have the freedom to be able to engage in consensual sex with the knowledge that my sexual partner?s probability of carrying an STI is reduced and should they have one I could see it.

Mandatory health checks? Hell, sounds like a great way to keep the population healthy and allows for the early diagnosis and treatment of ailments. Then again, I can understand how many Americans would view the idea as unfeasible due to costs. The funny thing is that healthcare is expensive in the United States not just because of a lack of government subsidies, but because it genuinely is more expensive in the United States due to how the industry in the US is designed and operates.

Condoms are 99% effective against PREGNANCY and not STIs. So no, it has nothing to do with my ego or me having to change - but thanks for that pointless personal jab. I hold to the belief that people should change to suit how the world operates... and at the moment we have STIs, infected individuals who do not disclose this and others being infected afterwards because those individuals either don't care about their own bodies and haven't been checked or do know they are infected and don't care about infecting others.

So yes, I'm more than willing to sacrifice a few conveniences to ensure that the spread of STIs is decreased and the population is more healthy.

 

[ckam]

Maybe we could all make them wear some kind of symbol to identify themselves. It should be easily recognizable, like the letter 'A'. And just to make sure no one misses it, let's make it be bright scarlet.

You're making the reference too obvious.

On topic, no. There are so many ways to get around a card that it kind of becomes useless. Also, you can't have one night stands that way.

 

[sumanoskae]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

 

[Vegosiux]

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

"Me having unprotected sex with a stranger" isn't their poor behavior, it's my poor behavior.

 

[Jenvas1306]

driving a car but not wearing your seatbelt? too bad if you have an accident
same goes for ons and safe sex.
dont want it? dont risk it.

knowing you have hiv and then sleeping around without protection... now that goes way further. thats almost like poisoning someone and in my opinion there should be laws and punishments for doing so.

 

[Strazdas]

So i was wondering how would i ask somone whether they have one or not, apeprently there are cards now? that would definitely help.

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

because irrational moral beliefs of course!

capcha: nap time.

 

[blackrave]

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.

On the contrary, that is something any RATIONAL person would do.

I think you meant "romantic human"

 

[TeamDei]

Sex is risky.
Minimize your risks by practicing safe sex.
If you can't handle the risk, then don't have sex with strangers.

An ID for people with STIs is not a good idea.

/End Thread.

 

[Vegosiux]

knowing you have hiv and then sleeping around without protection... now that goes way further. thats almost like poisoning someone and in my opinion there should be laws and punishments for doing so.

There are. If there are grounds to believe you knew about your condition and spread it willingly either through action or inaction, there's a nice criminal trial waiting for you.

At least where I live.

 

[Fox12]

Um... maybe you should exercise personal responsibility? Oh, of course not, lets pass that responsibility onto everyone else. It's your job to look after your own health, and no one else.

And the vast majority of people spreading these diseases don't know they have the disease, so how would this even help? I doubt that self aware AIDS victims travel around searching for one night stands. Honestly, this thread reminds me of my grandfather saying we should send everyone with AIDS to the moon.

 

[Saelune]

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.

People who dont have an dont want herpes would be ok with this. If someone has an STD/I and knows it, but doesnt tell any sexual partners, they are bad people. I understand it is embarrasing, and if someone does always inform their partner andis treated bad for it, that other person is bad, but giving someone a disease or infection is not ok.

 

[Jacco]

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.

But Daystar, saying people should wear protection is victim blaming! It's never your fault if someone lies to you about having a disease!

You win the universe. Not just the internet. Post of the fucking day, week, year, and century right.


I am going to echo everyone and say don't be a tool and sleep around and you don't have to worry about it.

 

[Nomad]

Sex is risky.
Minimize your risks by practicing safe sex.
If you can't handle the risk, then don't have sex with strangers.

An ID for people with STIs is not a good idea.

/End Thread.

Living is risky. There's a very real and overwhelming chance you could die - human life currently displays a 95% mortality rate, after all. What do I do if I can't handle the risk of living?

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Or you can combat STIs by simply using a condom with an unfamiliar partner.

Also, let us not demonize people who do catch an STI. Sometimes it's passed on to them by a trusted partner - like a lover. My ex had two roommates that were engaged, of whom the woman discovered her boyfriend was cheating on her when she suddenly came down with chlamydia.

 

[dpc3]

The beauty, and problem, with the internet is that anyone can post and get their ideas out.
To the OP (who will probably never actually read this, but I'll give it a shot) go read up on logic/ways of thinking. You have a lot to learn about basic reasoning. Anyone even entertained the OP's idea should do the same.

 

[Vegosiux]

Also, let us not demonize people who do catch an STI. Sometimes it's passed on to them by a trusted partner - like a lover. My ex had two roommates that were engaged, of whom the woman discovered her boyfriend was cheating on her when she suddenly came down with chlamydia.

Unless you're planning a kid, why wouldn't you be using a condom in a relationship either, though? No, "pulling out" isn't nearly as safe as it's said to be.

Edit: Then again I might just be saying this cause my ex had a rather nasty adverse reaction to pills so, I completely forgot that was an option.

 

[Abomination]

Or you can combat STIs by simply using a condom with an unfamiliar partner.

Also, let us not demonize people who do catch an STI. Sometimes it's passed on to them by a trusted partner - like a lover. My ex had two roommates that were engaged, of whom the woman discovered her boyfriend was cheating on her when she suddenly came down with chlamydia.

It's the people who pass it on are the folks who are demonized here.

Or perhaps the boyfriend was cheating with a "trusted" partner too? Someone has to have it first.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

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.

But Daystar, saying people should wear protection is victim blaming! It's never your fault if someone lies to you about having a disease!

You win the universe. Not just the internet. Post of the fucking day, week, year, and century right.


I am going to echo everyone and say don't be a tool and sleep around and you don't have to worry about it.

Thank you, I try

 

[sumanoskae]

no, it wasn't sarcasm... one nighters you get what you deserve no matter what happens....

Why would somebody deserve to get an STI just because they have a one night stand?

Let's rephrase the question: why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?

And I /do/ believe anyone who knows they have an STI should, at the very least, inform /all/ potential partners. They definitely deserve all the blame for being the kind of scumbag that would go around knowingly spreading herpes or HIV. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust a stranger to be honest just because they should.

That makes no sense, that's like saying boxers don't deserve medical treatment because they knew the risks. Making an insignificant mistake shouldn't condemn you to living with the consequences for the rest of your life.

Further more, why should people be allowed to do malicious shit simply because their victims lacked the foresight or intelligence to prevent it?

What are the negative connotations to this hypothetical law? True, you may be intelligent enough not to trust strangers, but why should you be held responsible for their poor behavior, and why should you have to be so vigilant if the potential danger could be prevented?

Actually, it's more like saying if you don't want to get beaten up badly enough to need medical attention, don't get in the boxing ring. I said nothing about medical attention, getting medical attention is kind of important if you have an STD. Or a concussion, for that matter. Also, check who you're arguing with. I'm not in favor of the stupid card. I'm in favor of, you know, wearing a condom, and generally not sleeping with total strangers, but wearing a condom if you decide to anyway.

It was an analogy.

Getting punched in the face isn't a risk to a boxer, it's a guarantee. Getting knocked over and cracking your skull is not, and that's a more fitting equivalent.

STD's are not a guarantee, they're a risk. And as you said, a small one if you wear a condom (Discounting things other than standard intercourse).

What other negative consequences does anonymous sex have besides the spread of disease? Why should the potential risks not be mitigated?

No law is going to entirely prevent poor behavior, this is true, but the law can still discourage it. Obviously, a card is not going to work, but I think a similar procedure could be effective.

Just hypothetically, if everyone could ensure that nobody would get sick from anonymous sex, why should they still not have it?