6 ms·
> People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics ar
by jMyles 9y ago
> People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.
The way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave."
Isn't sexual freedom a goal?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- namelost 9y agoEven if there were a perfect HIV cure, and antibiotics were 100% effective, there is a risk of infertility from chlamydia, etc. So no, unprotected sexual freedom isn't a practical goal for medical science. Better to use condoms instead.
- alreadyhere 9y agoUnprotected sexual freedom is completely a practical goal; condoms work well but many choose not to use them, for better or worse. Prevention doesn't even need to center around eradication of the disease; it could come in the form of home detection kits. For better or worse people will always have unprotected sex with strangers. It's a thing. I'm a little tired of the disconnect between medical advice and reality when it comes to sexual practices. Dental dams, anyone? Sure they're smart; I don't think I've seen one outside of health class. Doctors could easily provide more helpful advice.
- SirZimzim 9y agoMaybe in the age of nanobots will we have practical ways to allow for unprotected random sex.
- anovikov 9y agoI just meant that a huge wave of unprotected sex could mean that remaining 1% to explode into a large threat. But it is unlikely as there are other factors deterring it, so if the article is true, that might really be the end for the virus.
- LordKano 9y agoThe way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave." I read it as him casting the threat of those 'hard to cure STDs' as an incentive for people to not take the 1% risk of HIV infection.
- bad_user 9y ago> Isn't sexual freedom a goal? You always have the risk of undesired pregnancy and the best cure for that is the condom, since birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run, or you could undergo surgery, which is invasive and not without peril. So just use the condom already, those minty ones are actually cool. And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long.
- noncoml 9y ago> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long. If that's the way you want to live your life, it is fine. But don't try to impose your ideas to other people.
- bad_user 9y agoDo you feel like that about vaccines and people refusing them as well? Or what about smoking in public places? Because the way I see it, this is more than the health of the individual at risk, being about the health of the group.
- noncoml 9y agoYes, I do feel the same about vaccines. If nothing else a person should be a complete master of their body. But this is another conversation. If you don't see the difference about public smoking and unprotected sex, then I don't think there is any point discussing this. However your original comment sounded more concerned about morals than public health. If it was the later and I misunderstood it, then please forgive me.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 9y ago
- zghst 9y agoI hope so. Although other communicable diseases will still be a significant issue, as time progresses it should be easy to love a person, even if only for one instance.
- snakeanus 9y ago> Isn't sexual freedom a goal? For whom? Not for me.
- jMyles 9y agoI get the sense that you're hoping that someone will ask you to explain what you mean. So I'll do that. What do you mean?
- snakeanus 9y ago> What do you mean? That I do not believe that sexual freedom is a goal.
- FabHK 9y agoWell, it is for others. Let's all agree then on freedom, because then those who want to pursue it can, and those who don't, needn't, and everyone is happy (except those, to appropriate H. L. Mencken's famous phrase, with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having sexual freedom).