3 ms·

Is very risky sexual behaviour a good or bad thing? I'm just seeking to further understand this point. Any gay saunas in London has lots of big anonymous group

Is very risky sexual behaviour a good or bad thing? I'm just seeking to further understand this point. Any gay saunas in London has lots of big anonymous group sex, if this the idea that risky sex is bad then these types of places would be shut, however they are still open for business.

aerostable_slug 4y ago
At the level of a person? It's an individual decision. This is why I think the actual facts of monkeypox transmission should be openly discussed. If someone is in a monogamous relationship with another then unsafe sexual practices are limited in terms of risk. Other situations may be different. People need real data to make their own risk calculation. At a societal level? History says yes. EDIT: I would note that during the peak of the AIDS epidemic government did close bathhouses.
- CommanderData 4y ago
  These places are destinations for sexual tourism and an extremely easy vector to spread a new STD worldwide especially in cities like London, however the government has deemed them to be safe. I'd think their reasoning to keep 'high risk' areas open would be very rational.
  - aerostable_slug 4y ago
    They made a risk/benefit decision, that seems clear enough. I'm not arguing the sauna in Madrid needs to be closed. I'm arguing that a random person heading to Berlin, Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tel Aviv, etc. for Pride should know how monkeypox is currently making its way around the world. After that, it's their call — just like people do knowing that syphilis, HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and other diseases are disproportionately represented in MSM. I'm not telling anyone what to do, just advocating that everyone get unfiltered information.
  - colpabar 4y ago
    >however the government has deemed them to be safe I'd argue that political correctness has played a role in this too. As we have seen over the past two years, the government isn't as science-oriented as it leads us to believe. This is anecdotal, but I have gay friends who despise the bathhouse in our (US) city because of how dirty it is, and yet it's been open this whole time.

aerostable_slug 4y ago

At the level of a person? It's an individual decision. This is why I think the actual facts of monkeypox transmission should be openly discussed. If someone is in a monogamous relationship with another then unsafe sexual practices are limited in terms of risk. Other situations may be different. People need real data to make their own risk calculation. At a societal level? History says yes. EDIT: I would note that during the peak of the AIDS epidemic government did close bathhouses.

CommanderData 4y ago
These places are destinations for sexual tourism and an extremely easy vector to spread a new STD worldwide especially in cities like London, however the government has deemed them to be safe. I'd think their reasoning to keep 'high risk' areas open would be very rational.
- aerostable_slug 4y ago
  They made a risk/benefit decision, that seems clear enough. I'm not arguing the sauna in Madrid needs to be closed. I'm arguing that a random person heading to Berlin, Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tel Aviv, etc. for Pride should know how monkeypox is currently making its way around the world. After that, it's their call — just like people do knowing that syphilis, HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and other diseases are disproportionately represented in MSM. I'm not telling anyone what to do, just advocating that everyone get unfiltered information.
- colpabar 4y ago
  >however the government has deemed them to be safe I'd argue that political correctness has played a role in this too. As we have seen over the past two years, the government isn't as science-oriented as it leads us to believe. This is anecdotal, but I have gay friends who despise the bathhouse in our (US) city because of how dirty it is, and yet it's been open this whole time.