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

[sumanoskae]

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.

A: The person in question is a stranger, if you consider having sex with strangers poor behavior, you and the stranger are both participating

B: Why is having sex with a stranger "Poor behavior"? I was referring to being dishonest about STD's. Having relations with people you don't know is risky behavior, but I don't see what makes it wrong. If the only potential consequence is disease, what's wrong with laws being in place to prevent such things?

 

[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.

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?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

 

[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?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

I'm all for harsh STD laws. All STDs could be easily wiped out in one generation. If everyone with AIDS stopped having sex, there would be no more AIDS. The only way an STD spreads(mostly) is when someone with an STD has sex. Such a person is guilty of a crime against humanity and should be removed from general populous through imprisonment or other means. Like hacking off an infected limb.

Remember, I am only talking about those who know they have STDs and have sex. Of course, if you are sexualy active, you should be getting checked and, therefor, should know.

 

[ultrachicken]

The concept that people go around deliberately spreading STDs is naive and unfounded. The way STDs are spread is that people often, at least for a time, are unaware that they have a disease. It's ignorance, not malice. At least the vast majority of the time.

 

[DeimosMasque]

I'm all for harsh STD laws. All STDs could be easily wiped out in one generation. If everyone with AIDS stopped having sex, there would be no more AIDS. The only way an STD spreads(mostly) is when someone with an STD has sex. Such a person is guilty of a crime against humanity and should be removed from general populous through imprisonment or other means. Like hacking off an infected limb.

Remember, I am only talking about those who know they have STDs and have sex. Of course, if you are sexualy active, you should be getting checked and, therefor, should know.

While I don't 100% disagree with you. In regards to AIDS there is an issue. It can take up to 3 months before the HIV virus can even detected let alone having symptoms. Assume a person got infected. A week later got tested as part of a normal regime due to their risky behavior. Had sex with three people before the next test. That's when they find out. Are they really guilty of a crime? There was no way they could know.

 

[Last Hugh Alive]

Should someone who knows they have a sexual disease be forced to walk around with a badge on their chest? No. How utterly humiliating.

However, should that person make sure their consenting partner is aware of this before they have sex? Yes. Absolutely.

... and that's about all there is to it.

 

[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.

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?

Since this is a different situation, I'd like to give you a different approach.
(Think of it as giving different medications for different diseases).

All will die eventually.
If your primary concern is to live longer, then make healthy choices on the things you can control.
For the things you can't, hope that those factors don't kill you too soon.

If you can't handle the risk of living?
You could give up and die.
Or you can seek help with dealing with those risks.

Again, this is a different situation, so there will be a different approach with different outcomes.
I hope that you understand this.

 

[ShipofFools]

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?

What happens to the other 5%?

And if you can't risk being alive, then don't. You can always become a creepy shut in (Who will eventually slip in the shower and crack his skull, because life is funny like that.)

But you'll miss out, and do yourself a great disservice.

Sex is a basic human need, governments have no right to interfere in any of it.
This includes that stupid STI card system the OP dreamed up, homo sex, massive orgies or just two people enjoying each other.

 

[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.

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?

Fine, so where does not getting medical care play into this? Because that doesn't work as an analogy. You said it yourself, in boxing it's getting your skull cracked open that's the risk. Not being able to access medical care for whatever reason is neither here nor there.

And for the hypothetical: there wouldn't be, if they could also guarantee nobody would get pregnant unless both parties wanted it. Problem is we don't live in a hypothetical perfect world, which is what the people who cry "victim blaming!" and "slut shaming!" all the time don't seem to be capable of[footnote]Or rather, willing to[/footnote] understanding.

I am not referring to medical attention in regards to STD's, I'm arguing that making a poor decision doesn't make you undeserving of assistance or sympathy.

When you argue that by making a poor decision, a decision with consequences which only affect you in this case, you deserve whatever happens to you no matter how dire, the argument you're making is that the worth of a human life can be measured by their intellect and caution alone.

I have my doubts that you actually believe that death by AIDS is a fitting punishment for casual sex, so when you said "Why would somebody who made a bad choice that could have easily been avoided deserve to deal with the consequences?", you were not attempting to imply that yes, you deserve the consequences to your poor decision making skills even when they can kill you.

If you have unprotected sex and catch AIDS, regardless of whether or not you should have been smart enough to avoid it, you have fucking AIDS and are deserving of sympathy, not a lecture. What does making them feel like shit about their condition accomplish?

You are absolutely right, the world is not a perfect place, people get fucked over for mild mistakes all the time, just because it happens doesn't mean they deserve it.

In terms of the boxer metaphor, I will try to explain it as simply as possible; if a boxer's rib is shattered by a punch he could have easily avoided, and the broken bone pierces his lung and kills him, does he deserve this fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

On a similar note, if young man has unprotected sex with a prostitute (Out of sheer stupidity or for whatever reason) and contracts HIV which later becomes AIDS and kills him, does he deserve his fate simply because it "could have been easily avoided"?

I believe this whole debate started with the subject of STI cards, in the interest of full disclosure, I would agree that such a system would never work as proposed. However, I would argue that the idea of an infected individual being recognizable by anyone they could spread the infection to has merit.

And who said anything about denying people assistance or sympathy? I'd be sympathetic that a person had an STD. I'd give assistance, if appropriate. But I wouldn't have much sympathy for the actions that led to it if those actions were frequent, unprotected sex with strangers. And hell yes a young man who has unprotected sex with a prostitute deserves whatever he gets. That's darwin award level stupidity right there. As for the boxer? He may not deserve it, but he knew the risk going in. If he wasn't okay with the chance he might get killed in the ring, he shouldn't have stepped in it in the first place.

Basically, you seem to have an issue with the idea of personal responsibility.

 

[Dascylus]

Girl said she'd only have sex with me if I got tested and showed her the paperwork to prove it.
I had gotten myself tested the week before and knew I was clean but fuck that shit right? I was damned insulted at the suggestion when I would never place the same demands on her. If you can't trust the person you're about to get naked with then maybe you should reconsider your choice in partner.

For the record I left and was leaving the bar with the next girl within 2 hours.
I have only had one STD in my life, from the second girl I had ever slept with.
I won't disclose my record since then but I haven't gotten an STD since which would suggest that any question of frequency of sex leading to probability of STD might not have as much evidence to support it.

The message you need to take away from this is that personal responsibility is the only factor here and not how many people a person chooses to sleep with.

 

[TheWanderingFish]

I was under the impression that in the event that you contract an STD from another person, and they are fully aware that they possess it and don't tell you, they can be charged with criminal negligence, amongst other things.

Granted, this topic is more along the lines of prevention, but OP's argument is that all individuals should carry cards identifying whether they have an STD or not, but the law is there covering the backs of the population, doing that job. Of course it would be nice if people were all honest with each other to begin with...

 

[Hugga_Bear]

I doubt it would work, while I doubt it's too embarrassing and would kill the mood it just isn't feasible. Binding someone by law won't stop arseholes being arseholes.

If you went the other route and had everyone carry cards around displaying the last time they were checked you've got a whole different headache on your hands. Even assuming you get it into people's heads that the thing to do is have one of these cards how often do you get checked? Who foots the bill for the testing? Blah blah blah.

Nope, easiest thing to do is not be a dick if you've got an STI and always use protection when sleeping with relative strangers...that's not a big deal.

Seems pretty immature to think it would kill the mood though, it's a fucking question, anyone too offended to discuss STI's shouldn't really be having sex...

 

[Nomad]

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?

Since this is a different situation, I'd like to give you a different approach.
(Think of it as giving different medications for different diseases).

All will die eventually.
If your primary concern is to live longer, then make healthy choices on the things you can control.
For the things you can't, hope that those factors don't kill you too soon.

If you can't handle the risk of living?
You could give up and die.
Or you can seek help with dealing with those risks.

Again, this is a different situation, so there will be a different approach with different outcomes.
I hope that you understand this.

But the longer I live, the greater my risk of dying becomes. As soon as you've cleared the baby-stage, the risk dramatically drops for a long period of time, until it starts increasing again almost exponentially. Clearly, striving to live longer is directly counterproductive in terms of risk elimination, because of compounding risk.

As for giving up and dying (consciously succumbing to the result of the risk), wouldn't that be tantamount to actively getting yourself infected with an STD in order to not have to worry about getting infected with an STD?

Yeah, different situation and all that. I agree. It's the same logic, though.
Basically, my point is the age-old adage that you can't let fear rule your life. Yeah, sleeping around puts you at greater risk of getting an STD than not sleeping around. Just like crossing a street puts you at greater risk of being run over by a car than not crossing the street. Does that mean you should not cross any streets? No, it means you should look both ways before you do. Just like the risk of STDs means you should take precautions before you sleep around (namely: safe sex), but by all means, keep sleeping around.
Don't let fear limit you, but limit the cause of your fear.

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?

What happens to the other 5%?

And if you can't risk being alive, then don't. You can always become a creepy shut in (Who will eventually slip in the shower and crack his skull, because life is funny like that.)

But you'll miss out, and do yourself a great disservice.

Sex is a basic human need, governments have no right to interfere in any of it.
This includes that stupid STI card system the OP dreamed up, homo sex, massive orgies or just two people enjoying each other.

We don't know what happens to the other 5% yet. You're one of them, and so am I. Judging from the trend, however, my guess is they (we) will also die eventually. Barring the extinction of our species, however, the mortality rate will never end up at 100%. It will continue to steadily approach it, though. Also, creepy shut-ins still live - and dangerously, at that. Think of all the cardiovascular diseases one can get from a sedentary lifestyle!

 

[TeamDei]

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?

Since this is a different situation, I'd like to give you a different approach.
(Think of it as giving different medications for different diseases).

All will die eventually.
If your primary concern is to live longer, then make healthy choices on the things you can control.
For the things you can't, hope that those factors don't kill you too soon.

If you can't handle the risk of living?
You could give up and die.
Or you can seek help with dealing with those risks.

Again, this is a different situation, so there will be a different approach with different outcomes.
I hope that you understand this.

But the longer I live, the greater my risk of dying becomes. As soon as you've cleared the baby-stage, the risk dramatically drops for a long period of time, until it starts increasing again almost exponentially. Clearly, striving to live longer is directly counterproductive in terms of risk elimination, because of compounding risk.

As for giving up and dying (consciously succumbing to the result of the risk), wouldn't that be tantamount to actively getting yourself infected with an STD in order to not have to worry about getting infected with an STD?

Yeah, different situation and all that. I agree. It's the same logic, though.
Basically, my point is the age-old adage that you can't let fear rule your life. Yeah, sleeping around puts you at greater risk of getting an STD than not sleeping around. Just like crossing a street puts you at greater risk of being run over by a car than not crossing the street. Does that mean you should not cross any streets? No, it means you should look both ways before you do. Just like the risk of STDs means you should take precautions before you sleep around (namely: safe sex), but by all means, keep sleeping around.
Don't let fear limit you, but limit the cause of your fear.

Minimizing your risks =/= fear.
Not being able to handle a situation =/= fear.

 

[Nomad]

Minimizing your risks =/= fear.
Not being able to handle a situation =/= fear.

I agree. Were you just making an addendum to my post, or is this supposed to oppose something I said?

 

[Petromir]

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.

While I don't agree with the Roman Catholic churches stance on contraception (indeed I belive its not a very good show of an all powerful gods power if he can't even get round a fairly flimsy bit of latex, for a being that supposed to have created worlds and destroyed cities that seems unlikely) blaiming it's instructions seems a bit of a logical falicy as if they actually followed them they wouldnt be having sex outside of marriage and the problems would be a lot less. People are just following the bits they like and then using part of the RC churches stance on sexual matters as an exscuse not to do the things they don't.

Kowingly having unprotected sex with someone without telling them is actually covered by a number of laws in the UK, I've heard of it covered at least by 'regular' assult type laws as well as the various sexual assault and rape laws. i think there have even been at least attempted murder prosecutions in some countries for deliberate attempts to infect. Usually these are work arounds as there is no specific law covering it and the assault ones focus on the harm done and the sexual crimes ones tend to focus on the likelyhood of consent not being given had it been known.

Creation of statute law specifically dealing with this where it doesnt exist, and making it a crime not to reveal any infection known before any activity is a better way than STI cards/marks as they could easily be used to discriminate against epople who are dealing with their infection responisbly in areas where the infection isn't an issue.

 

[Something Amyss]

blaiming it's instructions seems a bit of a logical falicy as if they actually followed them they wouldnt be having sex outside of marriage and the problems would be a lot less.

Actually, no, considering the other conditions I was referencing. Things like medical care and rape, for example.

 

[Someone Depressing]

That is.. the worst idea I've heard this week.

How about just wear a condom? Or not put your junk into other peoples' junk that you met approximately 8 beers ago.

This isn't a case of needing people carrying around a fucking scrapbook, with pictures of their genitals and where each herpes spot is. This is a case of dumb people doing dumb shit, that they shouldn't be doing. It boils down to this: Bad sex-ed courses, and being completely drunk and out of their damn minds.

 

[TeamDei]

Minimizing your risks =/= fear.
Not being able to handle a situation =/= fear.

I agree. Were you just making an addendum to my post, or is this supposed to oppose something I said?

Nothing to oppose what you said.
If anything, it's me referencing my original post:
"Sex is risky.
Minimize your risks by practicing safe sex.
If you can't handle the risk, then don't have sex with strangers."

We can change the last line to:
"If you can't handle the risk, then you should probably not have sex with strangers."

That seems to fit in better with your "Don't let fear limit you, but limit the cause of your fear" mentality.

We seem to be on the same page, though.