This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
STD Prevention
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Orranis
Potential employer? You're unclean and untrustworthy. Denied.
Potential landlord? We don't want your kind living here. Denied.
Your family is going to know. Your friends are going to know. Your neighbors are going to know. If you go to church? They're going to know. And they're all going to judge you. And if they're the type? Make your life a living hell and never let you forget just what a horrible person you are.
And what if it isn't your fault? What about rape victims? What about people who get an infection unknowingly from a straying spouse? What about blood transfusions? They're all going to be judged and punished just the same.
A lot of your concerns examples are ridiculous... The amount of people who get raped with the average being 0.301318 per 1,000 people aren't as statistically significant as you claim them to be that coupled with that 1 and 5 people have an std not 100 percent and the transmission of an std with unprotected sex isn't 100 percent. Std spread through rape isn't as statistically significant as you make it out to be.
The risk for blood transfusions is 0 if proper screening for STD's took place.
Your family and friends have every right to know because you potentially are putting them in danger.
The only valid point you have is employers and landlords.
You just implied I'm going to have sex with my family. Yes, you did.
It could affect one person, and they could still demand a lawyer. What, 23,000 a year(?), is a slightly bigger number.
Post by
xaratherus
viking, consider that:
1) People don't go out of their way to check if their partners have STDs at the moment.
Heh, I do. :-/ I have ever since I 'miraculously' manifested the clap.
But I'm an oddball. If everybody did, well . . .
I don't think any sort of registry should be available publicly. However, a private registry maintained by the health care industry, with the assistance of the government, could be of (limited) assistance.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Potentially shared objects with the possible transfer of blood, think shaving razors, could apply here.Ew; you share razors with other members of your family? Why? If someone is dumb enough to do something like that well.....yeah.
Post by
Thror
The "1 out of 5 americans" statistic is silly. I would not draw any conclusions from that. The statistic is worded to be shocking and scary. If it would be put next to statistics such as "1 out of 6 americans are quite poor" and "1 out of 10 americans live in some sort of slums", it would probably be less shocking.
I am also speechless from the post Kalisha wrote on the previous page. It almost sounds like demonizing of STDs. I suppose that might just be a local thing, and obviously it probably does not apply to everyone in my country, but people here do not treat people who have had an STD as "unclean" and definitely not "untrustworthy". I have yet to meet a person that would discriminate someone on the basis of a disease (unless you would outright sneeze or cough into their face). Just saying though, i do not think that any sort of a database would be good either.
Personally, i do not think STDs are something to worry about really. Just don't @#$% everyone you meet, and avoid people who look like they do just that. I am quite sure that the chances of unknowingly getting infected by an STD are
drastically
lower when you are in a stable relationship with a single partner with no sidekicks.
Post by
Squishalot
viking, consider that:
1) People don't go out of their way to check if their partners have STDs at the moment.
True, but if a list would be made available the general fear and curiosity of most people would take hold and they would check to view if their partner was on the list. Remember you don't always get an std the first time you sleep unprotected with someone. You could easily check the next morning and upon seeing them on the list stop seeing that person.
2) What makes them any more likely to check in future if there is a public list of some sort?
The ease at which they could view it, if it was posted on some government website. A doctors visit means you are think its a possibility and you are not denying the possibility of an std, while on the other hand you could probably muster the courage to look online.
What proportion of sexual partners are a result of one-night stands? No time to check - if you're not going to ask them, you're not going to look up a government website either.
My point is, most people don't care enough to even ask, let alone go for a doctor's visit.
Also, if you're going to dump someone just because they have an STD, that's pretty shallow. Either a) because you'd dump someone you care about because they're ill, or b) you're sleeping with someone you don't care about.
Post by
Orranis
Potentially shared objects with the possible transfer of blood, think shaving razors, could apply here. Friends could always turn out to be something more.
Off the top of my head, HIV is the only STD transferred through blood. It would be pretty hard to be able to hide HIV from someone in your household. I'm sure there are other much less rare, cases, but if 0.03% (using your numbers, not that it's the most doubt-arousing statistic you should still sauce) of rape victims with STD's is statistically insignificant, STD's transferred from household appliances is going to be incredibly insignificant.
True, but if a list would be made available the general fear and curiosity of most people would take hold and they would check to view if their partner was on the list. Remember you don't always get an std the first time you sleep unprotected with someone. You could easily check the next morning and upon seeing them on the list stop seeing that person.
2) What makes them any more likely to check in future if there is a public list of some sort?
The ease at which they could view it, if it was posted on some government website. A doctors visit means you are think its a possibility and you are not denying the possibility of an std, while on the other hand you could probably muster the courage to look online.
This just isn't the way to do it. It causes far too many social problems.
Post by
Squishalot
0.03%, not 3%. 0.3 / 1000 = 0.03 / 100.
Post by
MrSCH
Here's how it works for me and ALL of my friends.
Unprotected sex? Checkup.
Think you might have something? Checkup.
Have something for sure? You tell people, irrelevant of how you feel.
If it worked like that all the time, no problem eh ;)
Post by
Orranis
0.03%, not 3%. 0.3 / 1000 = 0.03 / 100.
Yeah, that was actually a typo.
Edit: Thanks for finding it before anyone else did :P
Post by
Kalisha
Std spread through rape isn't as statistically significant as you make it out to be.
Please point out in my post where I mentioned absolutely anything about the numbers or significance of people that have or have had an STI for reasons other than being promiscuous.
You're only proving my point here. You're implying that anyone who has gotten an STI through normal sexual activity is dirty, inferior and promiscuous, and deserves to be punished - by displaying their sexual activity to anyone with an internet connection, opening them up not only to ridicule but discrimination - and then going so far as to take away their ability to fulfill the most basic biological drive we have by sterilizing them. All in the name of protecting someone who can't be arsed to take the proper precautions before jumping into bed with them.
(And I really,
really
don't want to do the Godwin thing here. It's ridiculous in most cases. But come on. Sterilizing people that you deem unfit to procreate? What does that sound like?)
The vast majority of STI's are
very
treatable. The vast majority of people with STI's go on to live perfectly normal lives. The chances of members of your household or your friends getting an STI through your normal day to day life are slim to none.
This is what happens when sex "education" consists of "ABSTINENCE ONLY," scare tactics, and shaming.
Post by
324987
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Kalisha
You didn't but since you brought rape in as a reason to dismiss my theory I discredited your scenario by showing that the amount of people it would effect is very very small.
Kind of like how the chances of giving someone in your household an STI through normal life is very, very small?
The chances of women passing on an STI to their children (when properly treated) is also very, very small.
The chances of a woman passing HIV to her child are slightly higher than a young, healthy woman having a child with down's syndrome (and by slightly, I mean 1% - or less). And significantly lower than, say a 40 year old, healthy woman.
You're buying into scare tactics. Do some research.
Post by
xaratherus
Here's how it works for me and ALL of my friends.
Unprotected sex? Checkup.
Think you might have something? Checkup.
Have something for sure? You tell people, irrelevant of how you feel.
If it worked like that all the time, no problem eh ;)
Yup - especially the last part. Unless you are going to be celibate. Knowingly having sex with someone while you have an STD, but not informing that person, is despicable.
In many states, a person who has HIV can be charged with attempted murder if they know they are positive, and are nonetheless having unprotected sex with others and they do not inform them first. If all STDs were treated like that - not attempted murder, obviously, but perhaps assault and battery (which is simply defined as physical contact the results of which requires medical treatment - I think that probably fits the bill) - then it might deter some spread. And since most state testing, and all doctors, would have the diagnosis on record, it would be fairly easy to prove.
Post by
donnymurph
If you're going to have casual sex:
Wear a franger.
Get checked every three months.
If you have something, don't touch anyone else until you have treated it fully.
Not exactly rocket science
Post by
Dragalthor
/snip
but no I do not believe humans with an
untreatable
disease be it an STD or other genetic disease deserve to reproduce when the Earth is overcrowded as it is.
A quick google search found that there are in fact only 4, yes 4, incurable sexual transmitted infections. These are; Hepatitis B, Genital Herpes, Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).
There is a vaccination against Hep B which is given to all those in 'at risk' jobs, such as healthcare workers etc and is transmitted by the following means only one of which is sexual in nature. Infection can be spread through:
Blood transfusions (not common in the United States)
Direct contact with blood in health care settings
Sexual contact with an infected person
Tattoo or acupuncture with unclean needles or instruments
Shared needles during drug use
Shared personal items (such as toothbrushes, razors, and nail clippers) with an infected person
The hepatitis B virus can be passed to an infant during childbirth if the mother is infected.
Genital Herpes is generally only transmittable whilst the infected person is currently experiencing an outbreak and only to another person with which they are having sexual relations i.e. it cannot be passed through tainted blood, other bodily fluids or to an unborn child.
Human papillomavirus is a member of the papillomavirus family of viruses that is capable of infecting humans. More than 30 to 40 types of HPV are typically transmitted through sexual contact and infect the anogenital region. Some sexually transmitted HPV types may cause genital warts. Persistent infection with "high-risk" HPV types—different from the ones that cause skin warts—may progress to precancerous lesions and invasive cancer. HPV infection is a cause of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. However, most infections with these types do not cause disease.
HPV infections in young females are temporary and have little long-term significance. 70% of infections are gone in 1 year and 90% in 2 years.
And most of us know about HIV
However, I'll leave the medical lesson now and ask why it should be up to you, or me or anybody else for that matter, who can and can't reproduce?
The best method of preventing STD infection, in my opinion, is proper and effective sexual health lessons for all teenagers. Including knowing what the risks are and how to prevent them from happening. This might also, in a lesser extent help to control the world population, as the reason we have overcrowding etc. is because people, quite frankly, like to have sexual intercourse with each other.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
Sterilize d-bags. Problem solved.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
Sterilize d-bags. Problem solved.
Yes because the children of d-bags are always d-bags....
Genetically it would be ensured.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.