4 ms·

We came of age in an era when HIV / AIDS was finally acknowledged and taken seriously by society, and recognized as something that could affect anybody. I thin

by danhak 6y ago

We came of age in an era when HIV / AIDS was finally acknowledged and taken seriously by society, and recognized as something that could affect anybody. I think the attention placed on STDs during our Sex Ed classes may have something to do with it. Learning about the horrible things that could happen to you through casual sex (with grotesque accompanying photos!) was a major part of our curriculum. And we were taught that condoms may not protect you. So I think there is some innate fear and shame embedded here.

nerdjon 6y ago
I am going to push back on this one super hard. yes you should take STD's seriously but to use STD's as your reasoning for not having Casual Sex is the opposite of how you should be handling this. What we need is proper education about protection, risks, and just sex in general not making people afraid of sex! You could just as easily get an STD from the first time you have sex after a date as you could with Casual Sex.
- danhak 6y ago
  I’m not suggesting that this fear is part of conscious reasoning.
  - nerdjon 6y ago
    I apologize, that is just how I read it and is something that I can get upset about pretty quickly. I have seen "sex ed" (in quotes because some places I would barely call it that), especially in the South, use STD's as a way to scare kids into not having sex which is so wrong.
- KMag 6y ago
  > You could just as easily get an STD from the first time you have sex after a date as you could with Casual Sex. Maybe, but people willing to have casual sex with you are probably also more willing than the median person to have casual sex with other people, which probably means they're likely to have above median number of lifetime sexual partners. Unless you're arguing that lifetime risk of getting an STD is uncorrelated with the number of lifetime sexual partners, I wouldn't so quickly declare the two risks to be equal. Edit: I left the U.S. about a decade ago, and as I remember, they were considering allowing MSM to donate blood if they'd only had one partner in the past year. I was under the impression that was based on statistical risk modeling, but maybe it was plain old prudishness being dressed up in statistics. I still donate blood here, but I've lost track of US blood donation rules.
  - nerdjon 6y ago
    I think it is complicated. On the one hand there is the person that may have a lot of casual sex but they are also properly educated about sex, they get tested every couple months, they take precautions, etc. Maybe they are more used to having conversations with potential partners about STD's. On the flip side you may have the person that rarely has sex, never really has those conversations with their peers or doctor and maybe only gets tested during their yearly physical. And yes I know I am very strongly generalizing here. I know people in both camps that do the opposite of what I am saying here. So that is why I say that yes obviously more partners increases your chance of getting an STD, but you also can't just say that because someone does not have a lot of partners that you can't also risk getting something from them. Edit: By properly educated I meant about sex... not anything else. Making that more clear Second Edit: Regarding the men who have sex with men blood ban, I think that has been proven many times that there is no evidence for it and is purely from a puritanical stance.
    - KMag 6y ago
      > So that is why I say that yes obviously more partners increases your chance of getting an STD, but you also can't just say that because someone does not have a lot of partners that you can't also risk getting something from them. I think that's a straw man argument. My reading of the GGP doesn't include any claim that non-casual sex is risk-free, just an implicit suggestion that casual sex is riskier. Though, the GGP isn't explicit about their claims, so I could very well be misreading them.

by danhak 6y ago

nerdjon 6y ago

I am going to push back on this one super hard. yes you should take STD's seriously but to use STD's as your reasoning for not having Casual Sex is the opposite of how you should be handling this. What we need is proper education about protection, risks, and just sex in general not making people afraid of sex! You could just as easily get an STD from the first time you have sex after a date as you could with Casual Sex.

danhak 6y ago
I’m not suggesting that this fear is part of conscious reasoning.
- nerdjon 6y ago
  I apologize, that is just how I read it and is something that I can get upset about pretty quickly. I have seen "sex ed" (in quotes because some places I would barely call it that), especially in the South, use STD's as a way to scare kids into not having sex which is so wrong.
KMag 6y ago
> You could just as easily get an STD from the first time you have sex after a date as you could with Casual Sex. Maybe, but people willing to have casual sex with you are probably also more willing than the median person to have casual sex with other people, which probably means they're likely to have above median number of lifetime sexual partners. Unless you're arguing that lifetime risk of getting an STD is uncorrelated with the number of lifetime sexual partners, I wouldn't so quickly declare the two risks to be equal. Edit: I left the U.S. about a decade ago, and as I remember, they were considering allowing MSM to donate blood if they'd only had one partner in the past year. I was under the impression that was based on statistical risk modeling, but maybe it was plain old prudishness being dressed up in statistics. I still donate blood here, but I've lost track of US blood donation rules.
- nerdjon 6y ago
  I think it is complicated. On the one hand there is the person that may have a lot of casual sex but they are also properly educated about sex, they get tested every couple months, they take precautions, etc. Maybe they are more used to having conversations with potential partners about STD's. On the flip side you may have the person that rarely has sex, never really has those conversations with their peers or doctor and maybe only gets tested during their yearly physical. And yes I know I am very strongly generalizing here. I know people in both camps that do the opposite of what I am saying here. So that is why I say that yes obviously more partners increases your chance of getting an STD, but you also can't just say that because someone does not have a lot of partners that you can't also risk getting something from them. Edit: By properly educated I meant about sex... not anything else. Making that more clear Second Edit: Regarding the men who have sex with men blood ban, I think that has been proven many times that there is no evidence for it and is purely from a puritanical stance.
  - KMag 6y ago
    > So that is why I say that yes obviously more partners increases your chance of getting an STD, but you also can't just say that because someone does not have a lot of partners that you can't also risk getting something from them. I think that's a straw man argument. My reading of the GGP doesn't include any claim that non-casual sex is risk-free, just an implicit suggestion that casual sex is riskier. Though, the GGP isn't explicit about their claims, so I could very well be misreading them.