STDs,

STDs, (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Health and Safety

Message

Stephann -> STDs, (6/18/2008 11:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StormsSlave How did this get hijacked into an STD thread? Interesting. I didn't want to further hijack that thread, so here's a new one. I find that threads addressing sexual issues often include a great deal of venom from the STD nazis. You know, the people who are terrified of sex, and use the fear of STDs as an excuse never to have it. Yes, STDs are a risk. So is getting out of bed in the morning. AIDS statistics are often used to say "SEE? Have SEX and you'll DIE!" Lets look at those numbers (source: Center for Disease Control) According to the CDC, between the years of 2003 and 2006, an average of about 4,000 men and 7,400 women per year contracted HIV through high risk heterosexual contact in the United States. At a total of 11,400, that's nearly half the number of people who die of falls (19,656), homocide (18,124), and almost three times fewer than people who commit suicide (32,637. (Source: National Vital Statistics Report, 2007) More men will die at work this year (4,670) than contract HIV. I don't see anyone campaigning against going to work, because you might die. Other STDs are certainly a risk; yet they rarely result in fatality. Only 47 people were reported killed by syphilis. I'm not saying that STDs should be ignored; I'm saying that using inflated and skewered statistics to push a moral agenda are neither helpful, nor fair. People who know what risks they take in any activity have every right to enjoy their lives in whatever fashion they choose. If you choose to smoke, drink, go to work, drive, visit the doctor, walk down the street, or have sex, you're taking a risk. Knowing what risks you're taking, and choosing to accept the consequences of those actions is part of being a responsible adult. Pushing moral agendas based on ignorance and propaganda is just as bad as ignoring risks all together. Stephan

SirDominic -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 11:22:33 AM)
You're not suggesting our government would used skewed statistics just to push a moral agenda. Say it ain't so!

Stephann -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 11:34:40 AM)
Well, in truth, this time I'm not suggesting it's the government. I think this is more of a media issue, influenced by changing attitudes towards sex, gender roles, and gay culture. When AIDS first started to gain notoriety, gay culture was still considered to be fringe, and that gay men needed to keep their interests and activities in the closet. Since then, gay culture shares nearly equal representation in our media, in our politics, and in our communities. I think these are all great things, but I dislike the way that billions of dollars are being diverted into a problem in the US, when there are other, clear, and pressing problems with nearly no attention. Almost as many heterosexual men will become infected with HIV as adults will die of malnutrition, in the US; more than half of those will be over the age of 65. AIDS is a horrible way to die, but so is starving to death, old, and lonely. The problem is poverty isn't nearly as media friendly of a topic as AIDS; nobody has to actually see pictures of people dying of AIDS, because it strikes at our sexually repressed national identity. Stephan

DesFIP -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 11:35:13 AM)
You're tarring with a fairly wide brush when you imply that anyone turning down sex because of risk factors is actually terrified of sex or pushing a moral agenda. You have to go to work to live. You don't have to risk a std to do so. Some of us aren't willing to take a risk that isn't necessary. As a result we don't have sex until after both parties get screened and cleared. I'm one of them. So is he. We aren't pushing our moral values on anyone except our offspring, nor are we terrified of sex. We love it, but we're capable of saying no thanks in a high risk situation. The same way we are willing to say no to getting into a high risk automobile situation. He's demanded a coworker he was driving with pull over and allow him to call for a cab because the guy ran red lights. I won't get into a car with someone who's been drinking. Those are ways to mitigate risks while still engaging in the activity. The same way there are ways to mitigate sexual risks while engaging in sexual activity.

SteelofUtah -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 11:35:33 AM)
Being a Sexually Free person who also has an Alergy to Latex and a Severe reaction to the Coating on all Non Latex Condoms I usually stay out of these kinds of debated because I tend to be drawn as the Anti-Christ. Here is the deal. I don't fuck Skanks or women with open clitoral sores nor do I engage in Open wounded Anal Pounding with women who say they enjoy it with random partners. I have sex with those that I choose to and as a general rule I only have sex with those who take their personal Sexual Safty as seriously as I do. Those who are tested Twice a Year are fine however I choose to be tested inbetween partners. Meaning that I know I haven't contacted some of the easier contacted diseases sush as Syphilis or The Clap or Herpies. I also make it a rule to inspect the genitiles of those I have sexual intercourse looking for Sore Scars from break outs. Yes if you look you can see them and they are rather obvious. I try not to ingage in Intercourse without having at least fully inspected then. I Perfer that they have a full STD/VD Screen with Blood Test and Scrap done but I also know that there is a risk no matter what I do. The Risk is a Personal one, Sure there are those who would say if I am infected then I potentially infect everyone from that point on however that is also THEIR risk. I get Tested all the time, a lot less now that I am married but at one time I was tested weekly because I wanted to be able to PINPOINT the activities and who I partisipated them with within a time line. I even had a Filing system. Yeah I know I'm far more Anal Retentive then most but the truth is the only person you can control is yourself when it comes to that risk and the truth of the matter is the Risk is MUCH less than leaving your house is. Sure People still die, but then again people who do nothing still die. I try not to Fear Death and instead Enjoy Life. Steel

Stephann -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 11:45:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP You're tarring with a fairly wide brush when you imply that anyone turning down sex because of risk factors is actually terrified of sex or pushing a moral agenda. You have to go to work to live. You don't have to risk a std to do so. When I pour tar, you get the choice to stand under the bucket. There are STD nazis. If you're one, bring your own pillow. You're correct though, you don't have to risk an STD to live; people do have to risk an STD, for our race to live though. Some of us aren't willing to take a risk that isn't necessary. I think everyone takes some sort of unnecessary risk. Is it necessary to drive to a movie theater? Or to take a vacation? Do either of you drink? Smoke? These all carry much higher risks than engaging in sex. As a result we don't have sex until after both parties get screened and cleared. I'm one of them. So is he. We aren't pushing our moral values on anyone except our offspring, nor are we terrified of sex. Excellent, and these are healthy ways to approach life; not so different than choosing not to drink, not to smoke, to drive carefully, and avoiding dark alleys. We love it, but we're capable of saying no thanks in a high risk situation. This is where my issue comes in; not that you choose not to engage in riskier sexual activities, but that you paint those who do choose to have sex with a higher risk as incapable of choosing not to; that people who are promiscuous must be weak or devoid of self-control. The same way we are willing to say no to getting into a high risk automobile situation. He's demanded a coworker he was driving with pull over and allow him to call for a cab because the guy ran red lights. I won't get into a car with someone who's been drinking. Those are ways to mitigate risks while still engaging in the activity. The same way there are ways to mitigate sexual risks while engaging in sexual activity. Exactly my point; there are levels of risk we assume, and we assume responsibility for those risks. If we're doing something we're not comfortable with, we're no less culpable for the results. In no way am I saying your strict adherence to safe sex is irrational or unhealthy; I'm saying that when you portray others who don't follow your guidelines as irrational, weak, or foolish, it's insulting and unfounded. Stephan

Dnomyar -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 11:49:46 AM)
Sends Steel a big magnifiying glass. Mmmm if you want to have fun. have her spread her legs out in the sun and move the glass slowly away form her. It will kill all of the germs.

SteelofUtah -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:12:12 PM)
If's shes got ants in her pussy this is a sign I shouldn't fuck her. LMAO Steel

Luciferica -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:17:32 PM)
Hmm..to quote Mark Twain...there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... The thought should be to use some damned common sense, and no, if there are ants in her pussy, don't fuck her...owww

katie978 -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:20:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah If's shes got ants in her pussy this is a sign I shouldn't fuck her. What if you're really into ants? I know that the risk of contracting AIDS is relatively low. However, there are other diseases where the statistics are a little more reasonable (1 in 6, anyone)? And, while I wouldn't die, the two-seconds and $1 I'd save avoiding the condom isn't worth having to live forever with an itchy rash like 1000 fire ants on my cooch. But that's just me.

Stephann -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:24:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: katie978 I know that the risk of contracting AIDS is relatively low. However, there are other diseases where the statistics are a little more reasonable (1 in 6, anyone)? And, while I wouldn't die, the two-seconds and $1 I'd save avoiding the condom isn't worth having to live forever with an itchy rash like 1000 fire ants on my cooch. But that's just me. Again, I'm not advocating being promiscuous, having sex without condoms, or ignoring the risks. It's the attitude of "fine, go fuck your life up, see if I care" responses that irk me. Stephan

Luciferica -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:27:06 PM)
I guess if your that into ants...cover yourself in honey and lay out in a yard in Georgia...you'll get ants. Using a condom is common sense most of the time anyway...the question for each person is personal "What am I willing to risk for this?"..

BRNaughtyAngel -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:28:33 PM)
Sheesh, now you people have got me not wanting to sit in the grass for fear of getting ants in my pussy!! [sm=runaway.gif] Sowwy for the ant hijack Stephan. [&:]

xxblushesxx -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:30:23 PM)
Why do people have to risk STD's for our race to live?

SteelofUtah -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:30:41 PM)
Ahh you need to read my original Post that says I am Alergic to Latex and have a sever reaction to the coating used on ALL non latex condoms, I could use sheep Skin but then I am still open to 1/3 of all the usual diseases and I personally think it's disgusting. So I just take my chances and the risk. Truth is the only way to be safe is to Practice Abstnance Or with someone you have already fulid bonded with and know they are not partisipating in sexual activities with anyone else and are completely STD free. Personally I think the STD Nazi's are just so scared of disease period they want to cut out all possibilities. Which acording to the CDC means walking outside or Breathing the Air Inside your home now. So to be REALLY safe People .... Stop Breathing. Steel

Luciferica -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:31:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BRNaughtyAngel Sheesh, now you people have got me not wanting to sit in the grass for fear of getting ants in my pussy!! [sm=runaway.gif] Sowwy for the ant hijack Stephan. [&:] Maybe they make raid or that yellow powder in a paste form to treat pussy ants....but maybe sitting on a big latex sheet in the yard would help...you know, yard condoms..

SteelofUtah -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:32:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Why do people have to risk STD's for our race to live? Okay I'll Bite Where are you going with this question. Considering Procreation is a Necessity to the Species if not the Individual that is Biology 101. Steel

Stephann -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:32:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx Why do people have to risk STD's for our race to live? Because you risk an STD every time you have sex. If humanity ceased to have sex, we'd cease to have children (test tube babies aside.) Just because your relationship is monogamous, doesn't mean your partner isn't cheating. That risk exists regardless. Stephan

Stephann -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:34:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BRNaughtyAngel Sheesh, now you people have got me not wanting to sit in the grass for fear of getting ants in my pussy!! [sm=runaway.gif] Sowwy for the ant hijack Stephan. [&:] No worries; long as you say my debate kink isn't as good as your ants kink [;)] Stephan

xxblushesxx -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 12:34:45 PM)
I disagree. Why do you risk STD's every time you have sex? I don't. If I were to go out and find another partner, or if He were to, then we would be, but at this point we are not.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875