10 ms·

And one other thing: Cheap, anonymous tests for everyone. It should be the norm that when you hook up with a new person / one night stand that you show them you

And one other thing: Cheap, anonymous tests for everyone. It should be the norm that when you hook up with a new person / one night stand that you show them your recent negative test result. At least where I live (Germany) you can already get them sent to your home for 50€ (https://samhealth.de/ https://samhealth.de/) and you can get free tests at your local health office (Gesundheitsamt) if you are not too shy to argue a bit. AFAICT it should be a net positive for society to completely subsidize home tests for everyone, but that is probably an uphill battle against conservative prejudices even in Germany. > A bit of diet, exercise, and an once of prevention is worth its weight in gold. All those cases of just eating less sugar / exercising more / sitting less are unfortunately really hard for most individuals. We really should strive to create environments where doing the good thing is as easy as possible. Like offering free daily work breaks for sport or having healthy lunch meals for children in school.

rayiner 5y ago
> AFAICT it should be a net positive for society to completely subsidize home tests for everyone, but that is probably an uphill battle against conservative prejudices even in Germany. Great, now we’re “prejudiced” for not wanting to subsidize other people’s risky sexual behavior. Did it ever occur to you that if there is, as you suggest, a large health burden associated with casual sex culture (and, according to the article, drug use culture), that maybe the “conservatives” are correct to be “prejudiced” against it?
- thesuitonym 5y ago
  A prejudice is just a pre-conceived notion about something. So yes, if you have decided that casual sex is bad, you are prejudiced against it. Don't be so upset, it's not a problem.
- m-s 5y ago
  Treating STIs is more expensive than testing, and also paid for through statutory insurance.
- stryan 5y ago
  Moral argument: functioning society's don't expect their member to act perfectly and always make the right choices. Would you expect a hospital not to treat you because you got injured while committing risky behavior (e.g. extreme sports, trying strange foods, or arguably driving a car)? Treatments like this support "repeat offenders" and the poor bastards who make a wrong choice once alike. Pragmatic argument: It's better economically and for productivity for people to not have HIV, Syphilis, etc. It's far easier to provide treatment and testing then to tell people to stop having sex.
  - leetcrew 5y ago
    I think it's actually fine to charge higher premiums to people who take significantly greater risks than the average person. we already do this with car insurance for people who drive certain models, have been in at-fault collisions, have traffic infractions on record, etc. no one "needs" to go skiing or drive a fast car, but a.) we should let them and b.) they ought to pay a bit more into the pool.
    - stryan 5y ago
      I can see the argument for that, however from my reading OP was arguing that people who take greater risks shouldn't get treatment at all or be "subsidized" by people who don't. You seem to be arguing (and correct me if I'm wrong) that people making riskier choices pay more for themselves to make up for that.
      - leetcrew 5y ago
        yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. if everyone pays into a pool without any risk adjustment, that is effectively a subsidy to the risk-takers. I think that is a more fair way to understand rayiner's objection to "subsidies". I don't think he is seriously arguing that risk-takers should be denied care/testing/whatever altogether. of course this is all hypothetical with the current state of US healthcare. step one has to be a reasonable cost baseline for people who don't elect a bunch of extra risk.
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  You yourself are making the distinction between the casual sex culture and STD testing. Diseases have a way of spreading and not testing for STD is a piss-poor way to change hookup culture for the better.
- ohazi 5y ago
  You can yell about it, concoct vindictive policies to punish people whose behavior you don't like, dress up these policies by describing them in purportedly scientific economic terms like "subsidizing," "externality," "free rider," etc., but ultimately, this is a futile position to take. People are going to do what they want. If the effect of peoples' real aggregate behavior creates a negative effect that you might suffer from in the future, e.g. breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria, then the more effective position is to STFU with all of the moralizing and support policies that actually work, even if you have to pony up a bit to pay for them. It's cheaper for you in the long run -- you're not just paying to support risky behavior, you're paying so that behavior that is going to happen anyway doesn't put you at risk in the future. Your options are to be angry today and sick or dead tomorrow, or to let it go, support effective policies today, and get a better shot at a successful tomorrow. Yelling at people doesn't work.
  - tryonenow 5y ago
    >STFU with all of the moralizing and support policies that actually work, even if you have to pony up a bit to pay for them. It's cheaper for you in the long run >Your options are to be angry today and sick or dead tomorrow, or to let it go, support effective policies today, You're asking for one portion of the populous to take on the burden cause by lack of restraint by another. There is legitimate reason for "moralizing" here. This is the point where what "two people do in the privacy of their bedroom" spills over into affecting everyone else. It's ironic that "yelling at people doesn't work" yet we see just as much yelling and moralizing by the people who want the freedom to do whatever they want even when their actions DO negatively affect others.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    This is always the hard part with public health policy, you can barely make any demands before people say screw this and ignore you, as we've learned from asking people to wear masks :/
  - haberman 5y ago
    > STFU with all of the moralizing Parent is responding to accusations of "conservative prejudice." That is its own moralizing. You can make the pragmatic argument that it's pointless to try to control the risky behaviors of others, or to expect the people engaged in those risky behaviors to bear the cost of them. But it's pretty insulting to then disparage others as "prejudiced" for not liking this deal, while having no criticism of the behavior itself. "People are going to do what they want" -- well maybe some people want to be upset about subsidizing behavior they don't approve of.
- dghlsakjg 5y ago
  The "conservatives" seem to be prejudiced against casual sex behaviors for the wrong reasons: religious dogma, moral panic, personal bias etc... The dollar cost of casual sex culture is not a reason I have heard cited as an argument against casual sex in pop conservatism. If you want to get into what costs society a greater amount, gay men getting syphilis is going to be way farther down the list than people having large numbers of children. We heavily subsidize that form of sexual activity.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  The question is whether you want to deal with the STD health problem or not. Moralising doesn't get you anywhere. People are engaged in this behaviour either way, it doesn't require subsidy. What you do by enabling everyone to self-monitor is solve the collective harm of harmful viruses spreading. So do you want to preserve your moral sensibility, or do you want to stop the spread of viruses? I think it is perfectly reasonable to say, of people who choose the former, that they aren't very praiseworthy people.
  - Natsu 5y ago
    > Moralising doesn't get you anywhere. Society is terrible at this, though. Issues like this tend to become proxy wars for other things. I mean, look how mask wearing has become moralized. It should never have become a silly political fight, it should've been people helping people get masks and avoid disease. Instead, we have all sorts of nonsense like idiots burning masks or arresting someone alone on a deserted beach for not having a mask.
  - castlecrasher2 5y ago
    You're advocating taking money from those who don't participate in these health-risking activities to subsidize those who do, and you're chastising the parent post for moralizing? How absurd.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      It's not a subsidy. It's the cost of avoiding public health crises.
- scarmig 5y ago
  The people disproportionately getting STDs have short time horizons. Regardless of the incentives in place, they're going to be having risky sex. It's less costly for society to pay for widespread testing and the occasional treatment than it is to pay for widespread treatment and no testing.
- busterarm 5y ago
  I always love reading your comments... You know, it's interesting that we highlight the health burden of other activities like smoking and some governments want to go as far as banning salt and sugary soda for the same reasons. But on this one topic we treat people like they're monsters for suggesting we should be choosier about our sexual encounters. Not just that sexual freedom is prioritized in our society, but _exercising_ that freedom is treated like a virtue. Despite all of the obvious costs and despite the fact that most people end up being less active than we'd expect and on the other side of that spectrum a lot of people come to regret their choices.
- standardUser 5y ago
  There's a huge cost associated with child-rearing as well but that's just part of human civilization, as is lots of sex and, while we're at it, drug use.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    There are many countries where sex outside of marriage and drug use occur at very low rates. As a result they have escaped the attendant social problems, such as single parent households, the AIDS epidemic, etc.
- bluecurtains 5y ago
  Uhhh you the same guy in your post history defending Bangladeshi marriage culture, which is based on forced child marriage? Big oof to have any moralizing from "conservatives" like you.
- Perseids 5y ago
  "prejudices" was a bad wording. I'm sorry to have ignited that much emotional heat which deters from good discussion culture. My usage of "prejudice" was the best kind of correct: technically correct. I was thinking about how nearly everyone that I had a personal discussion with lost their view point about how subsidizing STI tests was a bad idea after I told them about personal experiences of some acquaintances of mine. So those people were (technically) prejudiced, as a close inspection of such cases changed their judgement. Nonetheless, the word itself has strong connotations and it's mostly neither nice nor effective to tell someone to their face that they are prejudiced. And I can't assume it to be the case about a potential reader of my post. Regarding whether it is good policy, even with a conservative value system, my sibling comments have already presented most of the points I would make.
  - haberman 5y ago
    This is a really gracious comment, thanks for being so understanding.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> that maybe the “conservatives” are correct to be “prejudiced” against it? Because the most vocal "conservatives" are often the ones that, in private, are the most casual about sex. Not a day goes by without a news story about a conservative politician caught in some sexual scandal/coverup/fiasco. It is to the point that if I see any powerful man advocating abstinence I just assume he has a couple girlfriends stashed somewhere. Thou doth protest too much.
- lowbloodsugar 5y ago
  Do you drive a car? Do you eat red meat? Do you burn fossil fuels or rely on any kind of electricity? Well done. We are all subsidizing your risky lifestyle. When you are willing to retire to a plot of land and live entirely upon it, including starving each winter, then you may throw stones at "subsidizing" other people's risky behavior. Until then, you don't get to pick and choose which behavior we subsidize and which we do not. Alternatively, we can pass a law that says citizens can choose which kinds of risky behavior they are willing so subsidize with their taxes.
- gnull 5y ago
  Other people's risky sexual behaviour can harm you even if you (normally) don't engage in it yourself; it's not like skiing where people can break only their own necks. You can do two things to minimize the harm: (a) try to reduce the number of people who engage in risky sex—through changing people's views, different upbringing and whatnot; (b) try to mitigate the consequences of their behaviour—by subsidizing testing for infections and treatment. Note that there's no dichotomy here. I don't know if there's a good, reliable way to do (a); also, some people can be against it for ideological reasons. But (b) in the meantime is straightforward to implement and is known to be efficient. Why not implement (b) and make it work it while we are arguing about (a)? > maybe the “conservatives” are correct to be “prejudiced” against it? Conservatives should not be stigmatized for supporting (a), this is not prejudice, they can have the view they have on sex. But I don't see a single reason, except prejudice, that can make you go against (b), which is simply practical.
notsureaboutpg 5y ago
But at the rate some people have casual sex they would not be able to get tested before each sexual encounter. The cost is also high and it's not clear that society should subsidize the outliers who have tons of sexual partners when the average person has 3-4 partners in their lifetime. I don't think it's prejudiced to notice that casual sex is a risky behavior that harms one's community. We all agree wearing masks is not about your comfort level but it's about keeping society safe. Why is casual sex not seen the same way?
xkr 5y ago
For the people living in London: https://www.shl.uk/ https://www.shl.uk/. Home delivery and completely free.
dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
> It should be the norm that when you hook up with a new person / one night stand that you show them your recent negative test result. While I agree, €50 for an ONS is not exactly cheap.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  One would think an order of magnitude of the bar tab is not too much to ask.
inglor_cz 5y ago
From a libertarianish perspective, the best way is not a subsidy, but letting the price of the test drop into readily affordable levels. This also helps less developed and rich nations than Germany. A USD 10 comprehensive test for basic STDs would be a huge game changer in Africa.
standardUser 5y ago
In the US we are deterred from getting STD testing because the cost will be variable and sometimes very high, depending on what insurance you happen to have (or not) at the time.

rayiner 5y ago

> AFAICT it should be a net positive for society to completely subsidize home tests for everyone, but that is probably an uphill battle against conservative prejudices even in Germany. Great, now we’re “prejudiced” for not wanting to subsidize other people’s risky sexual behavior. Did it ever occur to you that if there is, as you suggest, a large health burden associated with casual sex culture (and, according to the article, drug use culture), that maybe the “conservatives” are correct to be “prejudiced” against it?

thesuitonym 5y ago
A prejudice is just a pre-conceived notion about something. So yes, if you have decided that casual sex is bad, you are prejudiced against it. Don't be so upset, it's not a problem.
m-s 5y ago
Treating STIs is more expensive than testing, and also paid for through statutory insurance.
stryan 5y ago
Moral argument: functioning society's don't expect their member to act perfectly and always make the right choices. Would you expect a hospital not to treat you because you got injured while committing risky behavior (e.g. extreme sports, trying strange foods, or arguably driving a car)? Treatments like this support "repeat offenders" and the poor bastards who make a wrong choice once alike. Pragmatic argument: It's better economically and for productivity for people to not have HIV, Syphilis, etc. It's far easier to provide treatment and testing then to tell people to stop having sex.
- leetcrew 5y ago
  I think it's actually fine to charge higher premiums to people who take significantly greater risks than the average person. we already do this with car insurance for people who drive certain models, have been in at-fault collisions, have traffic infractions on record, etc. no one "needs" to go skiing or drive a fast car, but a.) we should let them and b.) they ought to pay a bit more into the pool.
  - stryan 5y ago
    I can see the argument for that, however from my reading OP was arguing that people who take greater risks shouldn't get treatment at all or be "subsidized" by people who don't. You seem to be arguing (and correct me if I'm wrong) that people making riskier choices pay more for themselves to make up for that.
    - leetcrew 5y ago
      yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. if everyone pays into a pool without any risk adjustment, that is effectively a subsidy to the risk-takers. I think that is a more fair way to understand rayiner's objection to "subsidies". I don't think he is seriously arguing that risk-takers should be denied care/testing/whatever altogether. of course this is all hypothetical with the current state of US healthcare. step one has to be a reasonable cost baseline for people who don't elect a bunch of extra risk.
HarryHirsch 5y ago
You yourself are making the distinction between the casual sex culture and STD testing. Diseases have a way of spreading and not testing for STD is a piss-poor way to change hookup culture for the better.
ohazi 5y ago
You can yell about it, concoct vindictive policies to punish people whose behavior you don't like, dress up these policies by describing them in purportedly scientific economic terms like "subsidizing," "externality," "free rider," etc., but ultimately, this is a futile position to take. People are going to do what they want. If the effect of peoples' real aggregate behavior creates a negative effect that you might suffer from in the future, e.g. breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria, then the more effective position is to STFU with all of the moralizing and support policies that actually work, even if you have to pony up a bit to pay for them. It's cheaper for you in the long run -- you're not just paying to support risky behavior, you're paying so that behavior that is going to happen anyway doesn't put you at risk in the future. Your options are to be angry today and sick or dead tomorrow, or to let it go, support effective policies today, and get a better shot at a successful tomorrow. Yelling at people doesn't work.
- tryonenow 5y ago
  >STFU with all of the moralizing and support policies that actually work, even if you have to pony up a bit to pay for them. It's cheaper for you in the long run >Your options are to be angry today and sick or dead tomorrow, or to let it go, support effective policies today, You're asking for one portion of the populous to take on the burden cause by lack of restraint by another. There is legitimate reason for "moralizing" here. This is the point where what "two people do in the privacy of their bedroom" spills over into affecting everyone else. It's ironic that "yelling at people doesn't work" yet we see just as much yelling and moralizing by the people who want the freedom to do whatever they want even when their actions DO negatively affect others.
- Natsu 5y ago
  This is always the hard part with public health policy, you can barely make any demands before people say screw this and ignore you, as we've learned from asking people to wear masks :/
- haberman 5y ago
  > STFU with all of the moralizing Parent is responding to accusations of "conservative prejudice." That is its own moralizing. You can make the pragmatic argument that it's pointless to try to control the risky behaviors of others, or to expect the people engaged in those risky behaviors to bear the cost of them. But it's pretty insulting to then disparage others as "prejudiced" for not liking this deal, while having no criticism of the behavior itself. "People are going to do what they want" -- well maybe some people want to be upset about subsidizing behavior they don't approve of.
dghlsakjg 5y ago
The "conservatives" seem to be prejudiced against casual sex behaviors for the wrong reasons: religious dogma, moral panic, personal bias etc... The dollar cost of casual sex culture is not a reason I have heard cited as an argument against casual sex in pop conservatism. If you want to get into what costs society a greater amount, gay men getting syphilis is going to be way farther down the list than people having large numbers of children. We heavily subsidize that form of sexual activity.
mjburgess 5y ago
The question is whether you want to deal with the STD health problem or not. Moralising doesn't get you anywhere. People are engaged in this behaviour either way, it doesn't require subsidy. What you do by enabling everyone to self-monitor is solve the collective harm of harmful viruses spreading. So do you want to preserve your moral sensibility, or do you want to stop the spread of viruses? I think it is perfectly reasonable to say, of people who choose the former, that they aren't very praiseworthy people.
- Natsu 5y ago
  > Moralising doesn't get you anywhere. Society is terrible at this, though. Issues like this tend to become proxy wars for other things. I mean, look how mask wearing has become moralized. It should never have become a silly political fight, it should've been people helping people get masks and avoid disease. Instead, we have all sorts of nonsense like idiots burning masks or arresting someone alone on a deserted beach for not having a mask.
- castlecrasher2 5y ago
  You're advocating taking money from those who don't participate in these health-risking activities to subsidize those who do, and you're chastising the parent post for moralizing? How absurd.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    It's not a subsidy. It's the cost of avoiding public health crises.
scarmig 5y ago
The people disproportionately getting STDs have short time horizons. Regardless of the incentives in place, they're going to be having risky sex. It's less costly for society to pay for widespread testing and the occasional treatment than it is to pay for widespread treatment and no testing.
busterarm 5y ago
I always love reading your comments... You know, it's interesting that we highlight the health burden of other activities like smoking and some governments want to go as far as banning salt and sugary soda for the same reasons. But on this one topic we treat people like they're monsters for suggesting we should be choosier about our sexual encounters. Not just that sexual freedom is prioritized in our society, but _exercising_ that freedom is treated like a virtue. Despite all of the obvious costs and despite the fact that most people end up being less active than we'd expect and on the other side of that spectrum a lot of people come to regret their choices.
standardUser 5y ago
There's a huge cost associated with child-rearing as well but that's just part of human civilization, as is lots of sex and, while we're at it, drug use.
- rayiner 5y ago
  There are many countries where sex outside of marriage and drug use occur at very low rates. As a result they have escaped the attendant social problems, such as single parent households, the AIDS epidemic, etc.
bluecurtains 5y ago
Uhhh you the same guy in your post history defending Bangladeshi marriage culture, which is based on forced child marriage? Big oof to have any moralizing from "conservatives" like you.
Perseids 5y ago
"prejudices" was a bad wording. I'm sorry to have ignited that much emotional heat which deters from good discussion culture. My usage of "prejudice" was the best kind of correct: technically correct. I was thinking about how nearly everyone that I had a personal discussion with lost their view point about how subsidizing STI tests was a bad idea after I told them about personal experiences of some acquaintances of mine. So those people were (technically) prejudiced, as a close inspection of such cases changed their judgement. Nonetheless, the word itself has strong connotations and it's mostly neither nice nor effective to tell someone to their face that they are prejudiced. And I can't assume it to be the case about a potential reader of my post. Regarding whether it is good policy, even with a conservative value system, my sibling comments have already presented most of the points I would make.
- haberman 5y ago
  This is a really gracious comment, thanks for being so understanding.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> that maybe the “conservatives” are correct to be “prejudiced” against it? Because the most vocal "conservatives" are often the ones that, in private, are the most casual about sex. Not a day goes by without a news story about a conservative politician caught in some sexual scandal/coverup/fiasco. It is to the point that if I see any powerful man advocating abstinence I just assume he has a couple girlfriends stashed somewhere. Thou doth protest too much.
lowbloodsugar 5y ago
Do you drive a car? Do you eat red meat? Do you burn fossil fuels or rely on any kind of electricity? Well done. We are all subsidizing your risky lifestyle. When you are willing to retire to a plot of land and live entirely upon it, including starving each winter, then you may throw stones at "subsidizing" other people's risky behavior. Until then, you don't get to pick and choose which behavior we subsidize and which we do not. Alternatively, we can pass a law that says citizens can choose which kinds of risky behavior they are willing so subsidize with their taxes.
gnull 5y ago
Other people's risky sexual behaviour can harm you even if you (normally) don't engage in it yourself; it's not like skiing where people can break only their own necks. You can do two things to minimize the harm: (a) try to reduce the number of people who engage in risky sex—through changing people's views, different upbringing and whatnot; (b) try to mitigate the consequences of their behaviour—by subsidizing testing for infections and treatment. Note that there's no dichotomy here. I don't know if there's a good, reliable way to do (a); also, some people can be against it for ideological reasons. But (b) in the meantime is straightforward to implement and is known to be efficient. Why not implement (b) and make it work it while we are arguing about (a)? > maybe the “conservatives” are correct to be “prejudiced” against it? Conservatives should not be stigmatized for supporting (a), this is not prejudice, they can have the view they have on sex. But I don't see a single reason, except prejudice, that can make you go against (b), which is simply practical.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago

But at the rate some people have casual sex they would not be able to get tested before each sexual encounter. The cost is also high and it's not clear that society should subsidize the outliers who have tons of sexual partners when the average person has 3-4 partners in their lifetime. I don't think it's prejudiced to notice that casual sex is a risky behavior that harms one's community. We all agree wearing masks is not about your comfort level but it's about keeping society safe. Why is casual sex not seen the same way?

xkr 5y ago

For the people living in London: https://www.shl.uk/ https://www.shl.uk/. Home delivery and completely free.

dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago

> It should be the norm that when you hook up with a new person / one night stand that you show them your recent negative test result. While I agree, €50 for an ONS is not exactly cheap.

selimthegrim 5y ago
One would think an order of magnitude of the bar tab is not too much to ask.

inglor_cz 5y ago

From a libertarianish perspective, the best way is not a subsidy, but letting the price of the test drop into readily affordable levels. This also helps less developed and rich nations than Germany. A USD 10 comprehensive test for basic STDs would be a huge game changer in Africa.

standardUser 5y ago

In the US we are deterred from getting STD testing because the cost will be variable and sometimes very high, depending on what insurance you happen to have (or not) at the time.