3 ms·
> 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 a
by 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 agono - 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 agoSo 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 agoThere 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.