4 ms·

gumby says >"I believe that the absurd “virgin” obsession in some cultures is an archaic holdover to try to avoid STDs."< No shit, Sherlock!8-)) But to charact

gumby says >"I believe that the absurd “virgin” obsession in some cultures is an archaic holdover to try to avoid STDs."< No shit, Sherlock!8-)) But to characterise this as an "absurd ...obsession" is wrongheaded. Of course people don't want STDs! STDs for the most part killed people (syphilis, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, et al). Only in the last century have we had antibiotics and only in the last 50 years antivirals. Were there a major war supplies of those drugs, along with the birth control pill, would dwindle or vanish. STDs are a scourge b/c we have nothing to make them go away permanently. Maybe someday we will, but until then being a "virgin" has certain very real advantages.

dredmorbius 3y ago
There's that nagging little issue that female virginity is far easier to reasonably validate than male virginity. Whilst the disease transmission risks are not similarly asymmetric.
- butlike 3y ago
  Explain how? Cause as far as I know, the hymen is not a reliable indicator of virginity.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    "Reasonably" is doing heavy lifting in my earlier comment. False negatives are possible, but not false positives, of PiV activity. (Other activities of course leave no such evidence.) And there's no equivalent physical indicia for males. Also, as noted, if the concern is disease, then the fact of a test (however fallible) creates a highly asymmetric burden.
gumby 3y ago
> But to characterise this as an "absurd ...obsession" is wrongheaded...[STDs bad] Of course they are but it’s archaic and thus absurd today when they can be avoided (ubiquitous condoms) and in most cases treated. Not to mention I like to engage in activities with others with a modicum of skill…not like I seek out novice chess or tennis players. Without the STD risk the characteristic has no benefit.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  no - because sex has a biological cost. Many mammals have a "heat" cycle where adults become sexually active, then it goes away. Then everyone can return to survival. It is arguable that only certain niche creatures with relatively easy lives, can afford to be sexual more than that.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    So long as we're discussing nonhuman animal behaviour, polyamory seems far more the norm than monogomy, so far as I'm aware. (Definitely outside my wheelhouse.)
- giardini 3y ago
  There is always an STD risk, IIRC ~3% per year for condoms, which accumulates each year, always increasing, never decreasing. So the probability that your condom does not fail in any year is 97%. The likelihood that your condoms don't fail for N years is (0.97)*N. Odds of "no failure" for 10 years is ~74% and for 20 years ~54%. Not so great. You're looking like a fuzzy STD taco -a high risk matchup with no gain. Your gambling friends seek out younger, safer partners. [And that's part of what they're doing, isn't it? After all, studs can calculate probabilities too.] And that's just for condoms. What you're describing is not "skill" but a peculiar form of addictive gambling. And to top it off, there's always the "Lorena Bobbit" factor: a mate slices and dices b/c you gave him/her an STD.

dredmorbius 3y ago

There's that nagging little issue that female virginity is far easier to reasonably validate than male virginity. Whilst the disease transmission risks are not similarly asymmetric.

butlike 3y ago
Explain how? Cause as far as I know, the hymen is not a reliable indicator of virginity.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  "Reasonably" is doing heavy lifting in my earlier comment. False negatives are possible, but not false positives, of PiV activity. (Other activities of course leave no such evidence.) And there's no equivalent physical indicia for males. Also, as noted, if the concern is disease, then the fact of a test (however fallible) creates a highly asymmetric burden.

gumby 3y ago

> But to characterise this as an "absurd ...obsession" is wrongheaded...[STDs bad] Of course they are but it’s archaic and thus absurd today when they can be avoided (ubiquitous condoms) and in most cases treated. Not to mention I like to engage in activities with others with a modicum of skill…not like I seek out novice chess or tennis players. Without the STD risk the characteristic has no benefit.

mistrial9 3y ago
no - because sex has a biological cost. Many mammals have a "heat" cycle where adults become sexually active, then it goes away. Then everyone can return to survival. It is arguable that only certain niche creatures with relatively easy lives, can afford to be sexual more than that.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  So long as we're discussing nonhuman animal behaviour, polyamory seems far more the norm than monogomy, so far as I'm aware. (Definitely outside my wheelhouse.)
giardini 3y ago
There is always an STD risk, IIRC ~3% per year for condoms, which accumulates each year, always increasing, never decreasing. So the probability that your condom does not fail in any year is 97%. The likelihood that your condoms don't fail for N years is (0.97)*N. Odds of "no failure" for 10 years is ~74% and for 20 years ~54%. Not so great. You're looking like a fuzzy STD taco -a high risk matchup with no gain. Your gambling friends seek out younger, safer partners. [And that's part of what they're doing, isn't it? After all, studs can calculate probabilities too.] And that's just for condoms. What you're describing is not "skill" but a peculiar form of addictive gambling. And to top it off, there's always the "Lorena Bobbit" factor: a mate slices and dices b/c you gave him/her an STD.