6 ms·

> Experts say being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable If you are promiscuous of course, for those who don't the chance is almost cero.

joshbaptiste 12y ago
Assuming your partner is also not promiscuous
- adrianlmm 12y ago
  Of course.
- tormeh 12y ago
  And because of the friendship paradox, your partner probably is.
  - adrianlmm 12y ago
    Not in my experience.
    - tormeh 12y ago
      What makes you think your partners would tell you if they were promiscuous?
      - adrianlmm 12y ago
        Becase I've only had one partner, my wife, and because I've been his only partnert also, 10 years of marriage.
        tormeh 12y ago
        You're again depending on your partner being truthful. That's fine, but assuming people are truthful is horrible science. Statistically speaking, 50% of everyone cheat on their partners. The number that serves some white lie about their sexual history is probably way higher.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        You are right, is not only trust, but visits every six months to the gynecologists (something every woman past 30 should do) confirms it. > but assuming people are truthful is horrible science Is not even science, but what are we? robots?
        tormeh 12y ago
        That's why I said it was fine.
    - otterley 12y ago
      "Your experience" is not a good substitute for epidemiology and behavioral statistics. When it comes to medicine, politics, morals, and presuppositions should be checked at the door.
      - adrianlmm 12y ago
        Neather yours, besites, I'm talking about non promiscuous persons here (including the partner).
        toothbrush 12y ago
        Ah, the true Scotsman argument!
        Nursie 12y ago
        And you're still wrong.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        How come?
  - svankmajer 12y ago
    OT: I didn't know about the friendship paradox phenomenon. Thanks for pointing it out.
dalke 12y ago
STDs don't all require sex in order to transmit. Consider Human cytomegalovirus, in the herpes family. http://www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html http://www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html says that "Among every 100 adults in the United States, 50–80 are infected with CMV by the time they are 40 years old." Elsewhere the CDC says "The virus is generally passed from infected people to others through direct contact with body fluids, such as urine, saliva, or breast milk." and "If a woman is infected with CMV before becoming pregnant, the risk of passing the virus to her fetus is about 1 in 100." and "For pregnant women, the two most common exposures to CMV are through sexual contact and through contact with the urine and saliva of young children with CMV infection." In other words, kissing is a possible vector, as is breast feeding, and changing a baby's wet diaper. And that's only one STD virus. So no, the chance is not almost zero, even excluding joshbaptiste's observation.
- adrianlmm 12y ago
  I know the facts, but the statement makes it look like we should just relax and embrace it "Oh, you know, the stats say you are gonna get it anyway", not in my experience.
  - dalke 12y ago
    You know the facts but are still willing to say wrong things? That doesn't speak well of your commenting style. The immediately preceding line was "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are". Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already."
    - adrianlmm 12y ago
      > You know the facts but are still willing to say wrong things? What wrong things? > "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are". Of course, there is a lot of missinformation, still, how does that contradict my statement? > Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already." Well exactly, but my statement was the not promiscuous have almost cero possibility, not that they won't get it. >That doesn't speak well of your commenting style Neather of your comprehension abilities.
tunesmith 12y ago
It's a statistical statement that is valid against a group and not necessarily against an individual. Kind of like how racial demographics are important when analyzing segments of society, while racial profiling is not fine to apply against the guy that just drove past your parked police cruiser. So, "being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable" is a valid but somewhat clumsy way of saying that in general, people will be exposed to STDs. But it's not saying that you, the individual person reading this will inevitably be exposed, and nor is it saying that your individual spouse/partner is probably lying about their sexual history.
readme 12y ago
Wrong. If you marry and have sex with one female you've still got a good chance that she's at least got HPV. Unless maybe she's a virgin. In which case there's even a chance she contracted one during childbirth or through some other means.

joshbaptiste 12y ago

Assuming your partner is also not promiscuous

adrianlmm 12y ago
Of course.
tormeh 12y ago
And because of the friendship paradox, your partner probably is.
- adrianlmm 12y ago
  Not in my experience.
  - tormeh 12y ago
    What makes you think your partners would tell you if they were promiscuous?
    - adrianlmm 12y ago
      Becase I've only had one partner, my wife, and because I've been his only partnert also, 10 years of marriage.
      - tormeh 12y ago
        You're again depending on your partner being truthful. That's fine, but assuming people are truthful is horrible science. Statistically speaking, 50% of everyone cheat on their partners. The number that serves some white lie about their sexual history is probably way higher.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        You are right, is not only trust, but visits every six months to the gynecologists (something every woman past 30 should do) confirms it. > but assuming people are truthful is horrible science Is not even science, but what are we? robots?
        tormeh 12y ago
        That's why I said it was fine.
  - otterley 12y ago
    "Your experience" is not a good substitute for epidemiology and behavioral statistics. When it comes to medicine, politics, morals, and presuppositions should be checked at the door.
    - adrianlmm 12y ago
      Neather yours, besites, I'm talking about non promiscuous persons here (including the partner).
      - toothbrush 12y ago
        Ah, the true Scotsman argument!
      - Nursie 12y ago
        And you're still wrong.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        How come?
- svankmajer 12y ago
  OT: I didn't know about the friendship paradox phenomenon. Thanks for pointing it out.

dalke 12y ago

STDs don't all require sex in order to transmit. Consider Human cytomegalovirus, in the herpes family. http://www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html http://www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html says that "Among every 100 adults in the United States, 50–80 are infected with CMV by the time they are 40 years old." Elsewhere the CDC says "The virus is generally passed from infected people to others through direct contact with body fluids, such as urine, saliva, or breast milk." and "If a woman is infected with CMV before becoming pregnant, the risk of passing the virus to her fetus is about 1 in 100." and "For pregnant women, the two most common exposures to CMV are through sexual contact and through contact with the urine and saliva of young children with CMV infection." In other words, kissing is a possible vector, as is breast feeding, and changing a baby's wet diaper. And that's only one STD virus. So no, the chance is not almost zero, even excluding joshbaptiste's observation.

adrianlmm 12y ago
I know the facts, but the statement makes it look like we should just relax and embrace it "Oh, you know, the stats say you are gonna get it anyway", not in my experience.
- dalke 12y ago
  You know the facts but are still willing to say wrong things? That doesn't speak well of your commenting style. The immediately preceding line was "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are". Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already."
  - adrianlmm 12y ago
    > You know the facts but are still willing to say wrong things? What wrong things? > "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are". Of course, there is a lot of missinformation, still, how does that contradict my statement? > Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already." Well exactly, but my statement was the not promiscuous have almost cero possibility, not that they won't get it. >That doesn't speak well of your commenting style Neather of your comprehension abilities.

tunesmith 12y ago

It's a statistical statement that is valid against a group and not necessarily against an individual. Kind of like how racial demographics are important when analyzing segments of society, while racial profiling is not fine to apply against the guy that just drove past your parked police cruiser. So, "being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable" is a valid but somewhat clumsy way of saying that in general, people will be exposed to STDs. But it's not saying that you, the individual person reading this will inevitably be exposed, and nor is it saying that your individual spouse/partner is probably lying about their sexual history.

readme 12y ago

Wrong. If you marry and have sex with one female you've still got a good chance that she's at least got HPV. Unless maybe she's a virgin. In which case there's even a chance she contracted one during childbirth or through some other means.