5 ms·

HIV is bad but I wouldn't say it was ever a threat to humanity. Condoms and clean needles can protect you from HIV, both very accessible.

onion2k 8y ago
That's true if you live in a society where contraception is culturally acceptable. If you don't then condoms aren't readily available, and the spread of HIV is still a problem.
- thefounder 8y ago
  Then I guess the culture is the actual threat. Just like the anti-vaccination culture. Now, slightly off-topic, thinking about this I developed my own conspiracy theory: anti-vax is spread as a way to enforce a kind of natural selection.
- Chris2048 8y ago
  That's a society/culture, not humanity.
- zeveb 8y ago
  Abstinence is also an extremely good way to prevent contracting STDs. Imperfect, of course (there's still the risk of rape, and of bloodborne contagion), but remarkably good. Abstinence is probably even less culturally acceptable than contraception, pretty much universally. Chastity (i.e. having sex only with one's spouse) is less reliable than abstinence, since one's spouse may cheat, but it's also a very good way to prevent the spread of STDs. But even chastity is often culturally unacceptable, whether for both sexes (as in the U.S. today) or for men (as in many places, both historically & in the present). It's sad — STDs could be eliminated, but … people make mistakes.
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    Abstinence is as effective as a New Years resolution.
  - cr0sh 8y ago
    > But even chastity is often culturally unacceptable, whether for both sexes (as in the U.S. today) You are saying that in the USA today, that "having sex only with one's spouse" (ie - your definition of "chastity") is "culturally unacceptable" here? I'm curious on what you base this on? I am pretty certain that being unfaithful to your spouse, or even "significant other" is still considerably frowned upon in the U.S...? That is - I don't think it's "accepted" culturally - just tolerated (by the wider secular U.S. society). Maybe that's what you are getting at...? I think for the most part our culture would rather those who are married to remain honest with each other, to uphold the vows they took when they were married. There is also another smaller part of our culture (of which I am in agreement with) that would say as long as all parties are aware and consenting to it - ie, open marriages - that is ok as well. But I don't think our culture here in the U.S. completely condones unfaithfulness...? Maybe I am wrong? Certainly something to think about; which is also why I ask...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - js2 8y ago
    Abstinence isn’t a complete and utter failure because it’s socially unacceptable: it’s a complete and utter failure because people want to have sex. The answer isn’t trying to get people to stop having sex. For most people, that’s like asking them to stop breathing. The answer is better education and free or cheap and easily available contraceptives. And since even the best and easiest of contraceptives will occasionally fail or not be used, continuing research into STD vaccines and providing easily accessible options to women to terminate pregnancy. Further, promoting abstinence and chastity while not promoting other options, and especially when combined with the often corresponding anti-choice politics, disproportionately and unfairly impacts the poor and uneducated, particularly the women. I would go so far as to say it’s cruel to continue to promote abstinence today.
User23 8y ago
Monogamy is also an effective preventative strategy.
- DrJaws 8y ago
  celibacy is even better!
  - User23 8y ago
    Wrong on two counts. First because a monogamous couple has a virtually zero chance of contracting the virus and second because celibacy is evolutionarily indistinguishable from death.
    - iSnow 8y ago
      Don't delude yourself, even the monogamous couple has to go to the hospital or could, via sheer bad luck, have contracted it from a former partner (I doubt you were talking only about lifelong monogamy). And the second comment, I don't even know what to make out of it - living also leads to death, where does evolution come into play in this discussion? By your logic, someone who gets infected and later dies from AIDS, but has had a child is better off than someone who never had kids. What kind of mental gymnastics is that?
      - User23 8y ago
        I was talking about lifelong monogamy. This should be obvious from the "virtually impossible" descriptor. This is just basic logical reasoning. > someone who gets infected and later dies from AIDS, but has had a child is better off than someone who never had kids. What kind of mental gymnastics is that It's the kind of "mental gymnastics" where they propagate their genes and a celibate person doesn't. This isn't hard to understand so please don't be willfully obtuse.
        astura 8y ago
        Problem with this sort of moral policing is if your spouse is/becomes abusive then you can't leave them and if they die young you can't ever date/marry again.

onion2k 8y ago

That's true if you live in a society where contraception is culturally acceptable. If you don't then condoms aren't readily available, and the spread of HIV is still a problem.

thefounder 8y ago
Then I guess the culture is the actual threat. Just like the anti-vaccination culture. Now, slightly off-topic, thinking about this I developed my own conspiracy theory: anti-vax is spread as a way to enforce a kind of natural selection.
Chris2048 8y ago
That's a society/culture, not humanity.
zeveb 8y ago
Abstinence is also an extremely good way to prevent contracting STDs. Imperfect, of course (there's still the risk of rape, and of bloodborne contagion), but remarkably good. Abstinence is probably even less culturally acceptable than contraception, pretty much universally. Chastity (i.e. having sex only with one's spouse) is less reliable than abstinence, since one's spouse may cheat, but it's also a very good way to prevent the spread of STDs. But even chastity is often culturally unacceptable, whether for both sexes (as in the U.S. today) or for men (as in many places, both historically & in the present). It's sad — STDs could be eliminated, but … people make mistakes.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  Abstinence is as effective as a New Years resolution.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > But even chastity is often culturally unacceptable, whether for both sexes (as in the U.S. today) You are saying that in the USA today, that "having sex only with one's spouse" (ie - your definition of "chastity") is "culturally unacceptable" here? I'm curious on what you base this on? I am pretty certain that being unfaithful to your spouse, or even "significant other" is still considerably frowned upon in the U.S...? That is - I don't think it's "accepted" culturally - just tolerated (by the wider secular U.S. society). Maybe that's what you are getting at...? I think for the most part our culture would rather those who are married to remain honest with each other, to uphold the vows they took when they were married. There is also another smaller part of our culture (of which I am in agreement with) that would say as long as all parties are aware and consenting to it - ie, open marriages - that is ok as well. But I don't think our culture here in the U.S. completely condones unfaithfulness...? Maybe I am wrong? Certainly something to think about; which is also why I ask...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- js2 8y ago
  Abstinence isn’t a complete and utter failure because it’s socially unacceptable: it’s a complete and utter failure because people want to have sex. The answer isn’t trying to get people to stop having sex. For most people, that’s like asking them to stop breathing. The answer is better education and free or cheap and easily available contraceptives. And since even the best and easiest of contraceptives will occasionally fail or not be used, continuing research into STD vaccines and providing easily accessible options to women to terminate pregnancy. Further, promoting abstinence and chastity while not promoting other options, and especially when combined with the often corresponding anti-choice politics, disproportionately and unfairly impacts the poor and uneducated, particularly the women. I would go so far as to say it’s cruel to continue to promote abstinence today.

User23 8y ago

Monogamy is also an effective preventative strategy.

DrJaws 8y ago
celibacy is even better!
- User23 8y ago
  Wrong on two counts. First because a monogamous couple has a virtually zero chance of contracting the virus and second because celibacy is evolutionarily indistinguishable from death.
  - iSnow 8y ago
    Don't delude yourself, even the monogamous couple has to go to the hospital or could, via sheer bad luck, have contracted it from a former partner (I doubt you were talking only about lifelong monogamy). And the second comment, I don't even know what to make out of it - living also leads to death, where does evolution come into play in this discussion? By your logic, someone who gets infected and later dies from AIDS, but has had a child is better off than someone who never had kids. What kind of mental gymnastics is that?
    - User23 8y ago
      I was talking about lifelong monogamy. This should be obvious from the "virtually impossible" descriptor. This is just basic logical reasoning. > someone who gets infected and later dies from AIDS, but has had a child is better off than someone who never had kids. What kind of mental gymnastics is that It's the kind of "mental gymnastics" where they propagate their genes and a celibate person doesn't. This isn't hard to understand so please don't be willfully obtuse.
      - astura 8y ago
        Problem with this sort of moral policing is if your spouse is/becomes abusive then you can't leave them and if they die young you can't ever date/marry again.