RE: STDs,

RE: STDs, (Full Version)

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

Message

Stephann -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 1:28:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 I see a difference between a compulsive gambler and someone who screwed around in a previous relationship. It's not apples to oranges; more like fujis and McIntoshes. Some people cheat because of sexual or emotional compulsions. Stephan

xxblushesxx -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 1:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann blushes, This isn't a conversation about your relationship; in fact, I'd rather not know if your man is cheating on you. I don't expect, or even care if you agree with my position; I am stating positively that it is impossible to know, for a fact, if a person is faithful or not short of being kept secluded under lock and key. The vast number of divorce cases on the grounds of unfaithfulness tell me just how unrealistic your claim of "he's never cheated on me" because it seems likely you wouldn't still be with him if he had. Stephan I agree with you about this. My issue was with the "people have to risk STD's for our race to live" I'd like to know if that's just something you believe, or if you have a medical (or other authority) which states this unequivocably. That was what brought me into this conversation in the first place.

KatyLied -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 1:32:31 PM)
quote: My issue was with the "people have to risk STD's for our race to live" Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. Sexual contact is not necessary to procreation. It can be taken care of in a lab. Greatly reducing the risk.

Stephann -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 1:34:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xxblushesxx I agree with you about this. My issue was with the "people have to risk STD's for our race to live" I'd like to know if that's just something you believe, or if you have a medical (or other authority) which states this unequivocably. That was what brought me into this conversation in the first place. It's logic. As I said, in order for the human race to continue, they must procreate. All procreation carries some risk of transmitting a sexually transmitted disease. You can dramatically reduce that risk by being in a sexually exclusive partner where neither of you have diseases, and being regularly tested, but reduction of risk doesn't eliminate it. The burden to 'prove' otherwise is on your shoulders. quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied quote: My issue was with the "people have to risk STD's for our race to live" Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. Sexual contact is not necessary to procreation. It can be taken care of in a lab. Greatly reducing the risk. Reduction doesn't equate with eliminate. Did you come for the dinner, or just the show? Stephan

Luciferica -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 1:37:37 PM)
[/quote] I agree with you about this. My issue was with the "people have to risk STD's for our race to live" I'd like to know if that's just something you believe, or if you have a medical (or other authority) which states this unequivocably. That was what brought me into this conversation in the first place. [/quote]Most people do risk STDs to procreate how many 'perfect' 50's era mommy and Daddy relationships are really out there anymore?..Most children are born out of wedlock and as it has already been pointed out that you can't control every variable (no matter how hard I may try to) it is possible, for example, if he is a medical professional, what if his glove tears and he is exposed to someone else's blood?...Accidental needle sticks happen..

SteelofUtah -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 1:37:44 PM)
LMAO Yes you can have your Test Tube Babies. Personally I think the more we try to preserve ourselves the more we forget the Natural Order of the world. I'll keep my Sexual Intercourse Thank you and if you want a Test Tube baby then more power to you. I just find something unnatural about it. Procreation is NOT necessary to the Individual but it is for the Species If we do not reproduce then we all die and when you remove the Law of Nature you end up with something Unnatural. Steel

xxblushesxx -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 1:40:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Luciferica I agree with you about this. My issue was with the "people have to risk STD's for our race to live" I'd like to know if that's just something you believe, or if you have a medical (or other authority) which states this unequivocably. That was what brought me into this conversation in the first place. Most people do risk STDs to procreate how many 'perfect' 50's era mommy and Daddy relationships are really out there anymore?..Most children are born out of wedlock and as it has already been pointed out that you can't control every variable (no matter how hard I may try to) it is possible, for example, if he is a medical professional, what if his glove tears and he is exposed to someone else's blood?...Accidental needle sticks happen.. He teaches more than He actually does it.

eepsy -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 1:40:53 PM)
IMHO, there is "taking stupid risks" and there is "minimising risk"... Granted, we take risks all the time. Everytime you get on to the road (or walk by the side of one), you risk getting killed in a car crash, that's why there are regulations like speed limits etc. in place to reduce this risk. Everytime you go to the hospital, you risk catching something nasty from a patient, that's why patients with certain infections are kept apart. Similarly... Everytime you have sex you risk getting an STI, that's why people who want to reduce this risk make sure that their partner(s) are clean or they take certain precautions! Furthermore, there are risks you take that harm yourself and there are risks that end up hurting others. Not taking appropriate precautions and ending up with an STI is one thing... infecting someone else is another. I agree that no one should be stuffing moral values down anyone's throat... and everything should be your choice and to an extent, your partner(s)' choice. :) Just my 2 cents worth...

Luciferica -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 1:41:36 PM)
Isn't that the foundation of Brave New world?...You take away what makes a man a man and he is no longer a man

agoodgirl4Daddy -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 4:29:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah 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. Steel Here's the real deal. I sure hope you aren't insinuating that only "skanks" (whatever your definition of that really nice word may be) and women with open sores are the only women who may have been infected with an STI. IF you are, you are very very wrong, and suggesting that women with STIs are skanks is seriously repulsive to me. Because of the way many people view those with STIs or a history of STIs, many people are not going to be honest about having one (or having had one in the past). People who get STIs aren't skanks, hos, sluts, filthy tramps, or any number of other choice words that some may use to describe them. If your life hasn't been touched by an STI, good for you. You've been lucky. And are you SURE you have never been infected. Many people carry herpes viruses who never have an outbreak, yet they can pass it on. You want numbers? Okay...The CDC states that: "Results of a nationally representative study show that genital herpes infection is common in the United States. Nationwide, at least 45 million people ages 12 and older, or one out of five adolescents and adults, have had genital HSV infection. Over the past decade, the percent of Americans with genital herpes infection in the U.S. has decreased. Genital HSV-2 infection is more common in women (approximately one out of four women) than in men (almost one out of eight). This may be due to male-to-female transmission being more likely than female-to-male transmission." (from the CDC) So, I sincerely hope that judging others because they have an STI will soon be looked down upon, since theoretically, there could be 100s on this site who have HSV-2. However, on this site, I tend to see many who condemn those with STIs and trumpet the wonder of their disease-free status.

ELUSIVE1 -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 4:47:27 PM)
ok. first I admit that I haven't read through all the responses on all of the pages, so I hope I am not redundant when I say that being tested for STD's is no big deal...I used to be embarrassed asking my doc to be tested for 'everything'...then I was told-accurately I might add- that the health department tests for free, and they use anonymous numbers rather than names...so those who think they have a reputation to protect can comfortably go--and I also know that at 8 in the morning they unlock the doors and there is absoluetely no one in line ahead of you. Yes - I am tested regualarly, not that I engage in unprotected sex very often, but the peace of mind knowing whent he condom lsips off is worth my time spent going here doing this-- then there is also the matter of keeping partners safe and disease free too...I am all about playing safe and responsibly...like I always say, if you can't BE GOOD-- BE CAREFUL

MadRabbit -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 5:29:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann 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. Having condom-protected sex with multiple partners is defiently high risk if you compare it to getting struck by lightning. It's always amazing to me that there is entire groups of responsible adults called swingers who do this shit safely all the time, but people still manage to paint it as if your sticking your dick into hot lava.

Sandyshores29718 -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 5:41:59 PM)
What blows my mind is that it seems most think all you need is a condom to protect yourself. Or at least thats what they teach in schools! sigh Condoms dont do anything other than help with lower the risk of getting someone pregnant and we all know that condoms break. Sex is an adult risk we all take when we have a new partner. If i caught something, of course i would be heartbroken, but like i tell anyone i can live with anything other than Aids, that i just couldnt handle. We are all adults and these are the risk you take. Dont want to risk getting a std? Stay a virgin and marry a virgin, but even then what if one cheats? Nothing is safe people. edited for spelling

camille65 -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 5:54:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sandyshores29718 What blows my mind is that it seems most think all you need is a condom to protect yourself. Or at least thats what they teach in schools! sigh Condoms dont do anything other than help with lower the risk of getting someone pregnant and we all know that condoms break. Sex is an adult risk we all take when we have a new partner. If i caught something, of course i would be heartbroken, but like i tell anyone i can live with anything other than Aids, that i just couldnt handle. We are all adults and these are the risk you take. Dont want to risk getting a std? Stay a virgin and marry a virgin, but even then what if one cheats? Nothing is safe people. edited for spelling Not a single poster said that a condom is all you need to be safe. While I agree that no other prevention aside from abstinence was mentioned, the thread wasn't about how to have safe sex. Rather that sex is a risk that can be managed.

MadRabbit -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 6:02:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sandyshores29718 Condoms dont do anything other than help with lower the risk of getting someone pregnant You must be confusing condoms with the warning label on your birth control box, because only birth control inhibits pregancy while not protecting against STDs. STDs are transfered via fluids. If the condom stops the exchange the fluids, the STDs can't be transfered. So...simple logic wouild dictacte.... ...that condoms do protect against STDs in addition to birth control. How well they protect is another story and not the subject of my post. Risk assessment was. quote: ORIGINAL: Sandyshores29718 and we all know that condoms break. Sure, we do. But how often? The point isn't to negate the fact that there isn't some degree of risk, but to assess what that risk is based on statistical data. In the course of having sex with multiple partners, I would be rolling the dice that one of them is in the minority of people that have an STD. After that, I would have the roll the dice again for the small chance that a condom would break while having sex with that particular partner. In a realistic assessment, where does that stand as far as risk? Greater than getting struck by lightning? Lesser than getting in a traffic accident? It's one thing to promote the fact that there is a risk involved, but another thing to not to provide a comparision to other risks we take daily to determine whether it is a "high risk" or a "low risk". Those are subjective values and I keep hearing the phrase "high risk" being thrown about in reference to promiscous protected sex. What is that in comparision to? A risk of a shark bite while snorkeling in the Bahamas? Edited to Add : Someone might say that its in comparision to not having sex at all or having sex with one partner, but to me, that's a pretty shitty comparision. Simple logic would dictate that driving your car to work in the morning puts you at a higher risk of an accident then not driving your car, so why would we need to classify driving your car as "high risk"? quote: Sex is an adult risk we all take when we have a new partner. Walking outside in a thunderstorm is an adult risk of a lightning strike. Going to work is an adult risk of on the job injury. Meeting a stranger of Collarme.com is an adult risk of a hatchet murder. I'm risking carpal tunnel by typing this out. quote: Dont want to risk getting a std? Stay a virgin and marry a virgin, but even then what if one cheats? Nothing is safe people. Well, your post certainly isn't the most fear-induced, unrealistic thing I have read on these boards, but I'm sure it qualifies for another award equally as negative. edited for spelling

Daddysredhead -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 6:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah inspect the genitiles I read this as "inspect the gentiles" (correct spelling is genitals, LOL). I thought, now how the hell did this get to be about religion? [:D]

Huntertn -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 6:12:30 PM)
It seems to me your all right...the only thing is Stephen is really saying is that with real care the risks are lower...And thats its a moral choice we each have to decide for ourselfs...rather than misinformation thats out there thats slanted one way only...We do have choices..he just wishes thre was a more balanced way to get that across being presented.

Sandyshores29718 -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 6:23:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 quote: ORIGINAL: Sandyshores29718 What blows my mind is that it seems most think all you need is a condom to protect yourself. Or at least thats what they teach in schools! sigh Condoms dont do anything other than help with lower the risk of getting someone pregnant and we all know that condoms break. Sex is an adult risk we all take when we have a new partner. If i caught something, of course i would be heartbroken, but like i tell anyone i can live with anything other than Aids, that i just couldnt handle. We are all adults and these are the risk you take. Dont want to risk getting a std? Stay a virgin and marry a virgin, but even then what if one cheats? Nothing is safe people. edited for spelling Not a single poster said that a condom is all you need to be safe. While I agree that no other prevention aside from abstinence was mentioned, the thread wasn't about how to have safe sex. Rather that sex is a risk that can be managed. I did not mean someone that posted here thought that. What I meant was that it seems the schools teach that.

camille65 -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 6:24:51 PM)
Okay. It's been a very very long time since I've been in school! [:D]

Sandyshores29718 -> RE: STDs, (6/18/2008 6:25:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: Sandyshores29718 quote: Dont want to risk getting a std? Stay a virgin and marry a virgin, but even then what if one cheats? Nothing is safe people. Well, your post certainly isn't the most fear-induced, unrealistic thing I have read on these boards, but I'm sure it qualifies for another award equally as negative. I did not mean to come off so negative cause to be honest I'm not. My point is why worried to the point of not living your life. Nothing is a 100% safe.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.347656E-02