4 ms·

The statement "if you are not promiscuous then your chances of getting an STD virus are near zero" is wrong. It is wrong because 1) even if you only have sex w

by dalke 12y ago

The statement "if you are not promiscuous then your chances of getting an STD virus are near zero" is wrong. It is wrong because 1) even if you only have sex with one other person, that other person might have one or more STDs, 2) viral STDs are passed by more than sex; babies can get an STD congenitally, and STDs can be passed through other fluids including kissing, and it can be passed through blood transfusion and needle sharing, 3) those who are raped can get an STD even though they have never otherwise had sex. About 80-90% of American adults have herpes simplex type-1. It can be passed by kissing, sharing toothbrushes or utensils, etc. Many people carry the virus and don’t even know it. (See https://www.health.arizona.edu/health_topics/sexual_health/kissing.htm https://www.health.arizona.edu/health_topics/sexual_health/k... as one of many sources.) So no. Even someone who has followed a vow of chastity and has never had sex still has a not-near-zero chance of having a viral STD. To be more precise you'll need to quantify what promiscuous means. Certainly for someone with 4 or so sex partners in their life - by nearly all measures this is not promiscuous - do not have an "almost zero possibility" of having a viral STD.

adrianlmm 12y ago
I guess you are right in that part, but, the article is talking about condoms, hence, sexual relantionships, not kissing, not clothing, that is the context, my comment is also in that context, see that?
- Nursie 12y ago
  Except it's still wrong. You have a large, non-zero chance of having sex with someone who has been exposed to these STDs, even if they were celibate until they met you.
  - adrianlmm 12y ago
    exposed? sure, as using a public bathroom, who doesn't? contained? that's another story.
    - Nursie 12y ago
      Your initial point, that only promiscuous people have to worry about this stuff, is incorrect. I'm not sure why you're having such trouble accepting it but I guess it's none of my concern really.
      - adrianlmm 12y ago
        >Your initial point, that only promiscuous people have to worry about this stuff Exactly, in the context of the article, and that is condoms, hence, sexual relations, see that? why you so mad?
        dalke 12y ago
        You are veering into tone troll territory. To get back on track, please define what you mean by "promiscuous", as the article makes no mention of that and there are multiple possible interpretations. The median number of sexual partners is 3-8 (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm ), so that's the likely context of the readership. You must be talking about more than that, to be "promiscuous", as something different than "normal sex life." If so, then you are talking about a different context. Or do you use the term "promiscuous" for anyone who has had more than one sexual partner? If so, that is certainly not the context of the article.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        I'm talking about those who haven't settle down with a sexual partner, those who keep experimenting are the ones who have the highter probability.
        dalke 12y ago
        Your definition is quite different than the usual definition of promiscuous. For example, it means that everyone who has had sex for the first time, and who hasn't yet decided if this partner is permanent, is promiscuous. Thus, your definition concerns intent, when viruses don't care one whit about intent. You see this in the sex research literature - for example, "men who have sex with men" is a category which is irrespective of self-identification, as MSM is the action, while "gay", "queer", "homosexual", "bisexual", "polysexual", "bi-curious", etc. have cultural and motivational meaning beyond the mechanics. Again, your use of moralistic terms like "promiscuous", "experimenting", and "settle down" suggest to me that you have a sex-negative viewpoint. People like sex. Most people have sex with multiple partners over their lives. Advice like "don't ever have sex except in a committed marriage to a monogamous spouse" isn't effective, and has never been effective. It does it make people hide their sexuality ... but they'll still have sex. It instead means they won't get the information they need for safe sex. We see this in the US where abstinence only sex education has been shown to be ineffective at changing behavior, while real sex education, including how to use a condom, leads to better outcomes. See http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf as one of many such summaries. If you're going to suggest unreasonable solutions, you might as well suggest people live in their own isolated bubble suits - it will certainly prevent STD transmission, where your suggestion doesn't.
  - bgilroy26 12y ago
    If it's a large chance, it's specious to say it's non-zero, if it's a "non-zero" chance, it isn't quite large. Which do you mean?
- dalke 12y ago
  Your context has little bearing on the article, so no, I don't see the context. It starts off with STD viruses as a whole, then narrows that down to the most life-threatening viruses; HIV and hep B and hep C. It talks about sex as one vector for the transmission of STDs, but also points out that "60% of hepatitis carriers acquired the virus be means other than sexual intercourse." It then says that condoms would have been effective for the other 40%, then cautions that effectiveness for hepatitis doesn't equate to similar effectiveness for all other STDs. You'll notice that the article is only talking about condoms. It is not trying to be complete. Otherwise it would have included, for example, a discussion of oral dams. Since it isn't trying to be complete, you can't use the lack of details about other transmission vectors to draw any conclusions about how an average or below average number of sexual partners leads to a "near zero" likelihood of getting a viral STD. It doesn't even try because at the top it observes that "since the AIDS epidemic, awareness of sexually transmitted diseases seems embedded as a Bay Area cultural norm". The article is meant for a Bay Area reader, and hence the author has an expectation that the reader does not need details about basic information. Based on your use of the term "promiscuous", and assumption about the context, I am going to infer that you did not have a similarly sex-positive sex education.

by dalke 12y ago

adrianlmm 12y ago

I guess you are right in that part, but, the article is talking about condoms, hence, sexual relantionships, not kissing, not clothing, that is the context, my comment is also in that context, see that?

Nursie 12y ago
Except it's still wrong. You have a large, non-zero chance of having sex with someone who has been exposed to these STDs, even if they were celibate until they met you.
- adrianlmm 12y ago
  exposed? sure, as using a public bathroom, who doesn't? contained? that's another story.
  - Nursie 12y ago
    Your initial point, that only promiscuous people have to worry about this stuff, is incorrect. I'm not sure why you're having such trouble accepting it but I guess it's none of my concern really.
    - adrianlmm 12y ago
      >Your initial point, that only promiscuous people have to worry about this stuff Exactly, in the context of the article, and that is condoms, hence, sexual relations, see that? why you so mad?
      - dalke 12y ago
        You are veering into tone troll territory. To get back on track, please define what you mean by "promiscuous", as the article makes no mention of that and there are multiple possible interpretations. The median number of sexual partners is 3-8 (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm ), so that's the likely context of the readership. You must be talking about more than that, to be "promiscuous", as something different than "normal sex life." If so, then you are talking about a different context. Or do you use the term "promiscuous" for anyone who has had more than one sexual partner? If so, that is certainly not the context of the article.
        adrianlmm 12y ago
        I'm talking about those who haven't settle down with a sexual partner, those who keep experimenting are the ones who have the highter probability.
        dalke 12y ago
        Your definition is quite different than the usual definition of promiscuous. For example, it means that everyone who has had sex for the first time, and who hasn't yet decided if this partner is permanent, is promiscuous. Thus, your definition concerns intent, when viruses don't care one whit about intent. You see this in the sex research literature - for example, "men who have sex with men" is a category which is irrespective of self-identification, as MSM is the action, while "gay", "queer", "homosexual", "bisexual", "polysexual", "bi-curious", etc. have cultural and motivational meaning beyond the mechanics. Again, your use of moralistic terms like "promiscuous", "experimenting", and "settle down" suggest to me that you have a sex-negative viewpoint. People like sex. Most people have sex with multiple partners over their lives. Advice like "don't ever have sex except in a committed marriage to a monogamous spouse" isn't effective, and has never been effective. It does it make people hide their sexuality ... but they'll still have sex. It instead means they won't get the information they need for safe sex. We see this in the US where abstinence only sex education has been shown to be ineffective at changing behavior, while real sex education, including how to use a condom, leads to better outcomes. See http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf as one of many such summaries. If you're going to suggest unreasonable solutions, you might as well suggest people live in their own isolated bubble suits - it will certainly prevent STD transmission, where your suggestion doesn't.
- bgilroy26 12y ago
  If it's a large chance, it's specious to say it's non-zero, if it's a "non-zero" chance, it isn't quite large. Which do you mean?
dalke 12y ago
Your context has little bearing on the article, so no, I don't see the context. It starts off with STD viruses as a whole, then narrows that down to the most life-threatening viruses; HIV and hep B and hep C. It talks about sex as one vector for the transmission of STDs, but also points out that "60% of hepatitis carriers acquired the virus be means other than sexual intercourse." It then says that condoms would have been effective for the other 40%, then cautions that effectiveness for hepatitis doesn't equate to similar effectiveness for all other STDs. You'll notice that the article is only talking about condoms. It is not trying to be complete. Otherwise it would have included, for example, a discussion of oral dams. Since it isn't trying to be complete, you can't use the lack of details about other transmission vectors to draw any conclusions about how an average or below average number of sexual partners leads to a "near zero" likelihood of getting a viral STD. It doesn't even try because at the top it observes that "since the AIDS epidemic, awareness of sexually transmitted diseases seems embedded as a Bay Area cultural norm". The article is meant for a Bay Area reader, and hence the author has an expectation that the reader does not need details about basic information. Based on your use of the term "promiscuous", and assumption about the context, I am going to infer that you did not have a similarly sex-positive sex education.