評価の高い 200 コメント全て表示する 244

[–]weergb4agfdg55g 137 ポイント138 ポイント  (17子コメント)

The famous philosopher Nietzsche was a bit of a lush and had a fondness for prostitutes. Somewhere along the way, he contracted syphilis and his body began to wither from the inside out.

This is a false, steaming pile of bullshit urban legend that needs to die.

"His madness was in all probability an atypical general paresis. If so, he must have had syphilis; and since he is known to have lived a highly ascetic life, it is supposed that, as a student, he had visited a brothel once or twice. This has never been substantiated, and any detailed accounts of such experiences are either poetry or pornography - not biography. Nor has the suggestion ever been disproved that he may have been infected while nursing wounded soldiers in 1870."

-- The Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kaufmann, p. 13.

That means neither drinking nor whoring. It is very likely that Nietzsche died a virgin.

'Common knowledge' is usually wrong and often contrived by people with an ax to grind against what they are slandering.

No one in the last hundred years knows more about Nietzsche than Walter Kaufmann, himself an extraordinary human and scholar, so I would take his word over some random blogger.

[–]frexels 53 ポイント54 ポイント  (9子コメント)

There's also the part where he refers to syphilis as a virus which is completely incorrect. He also describes it as presenting like a herpes outbreak, which is also wrong.

[–]SexLiesAndExercise 32 ポイント33 ポイント  (5子コメント)

"Forgive me for not looking up pictures"

What? He was supposed to be writing an educational article. Journalism requires a bit of research!

[–]CitizenPremier 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's amazing that the author didn't even seem to consider the prospect of women reading the article

[–]DumpyDoo 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Why do you say that? I'm female and didn't notice an exclusion of female interests.

[–]alias-of-a-girl 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, me neither. In fact, the pregnancy section seems mostly aimed at women.

[–]my-alt 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes primary syphilis generally presents as a single hard sore that is painless and not itchy.

Herpes is generally multiple sores that are itchy and maybe slightly painful. It's completely different.

It's also caused by bacteria, not a virus. Penicillin wouldn't do anything to cure it if it was a virus.

[–]mangodrunk 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's also the part where they claim only six or so of the hundred strains of HPV are actually dangerous, but they don't state the prevalence of them. So, just because there are only six of a hundred, doesn't really mean much.

[–]Sharra_Blackfire 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are a lot of things in this article that are just plain wrong. Plus his portion about pregnancy is just disgustingly biased. "Prepare to cough up half your paycheck for 18 years"? This guy has issues

[–]theGentlemanInWhite 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

If thats our only problem then this article is doing pretty good.

[–]my-alt 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It has lots of other problems. I actually agree with his overall general point, but he's not too good at getting the details right.

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 69 ポイント70 ポイント  (18子コメント)

Also the RAW score leaves out one very important factor. Transmissibility. The score they have given to HIV was 180. They are saying have unprotected sex with 180 people and you are sure to get HIV. This is insaneley low. When you consider that only around 1 in 200 acts of receptive anal sex with a known HIV positive partners results in infection. This figure is for the most inherently risky act. For receptive vaginal the estimate is 1 in 1000 exposures.

Source for transmissibility estimates:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/law/pdf/HIVtranmsmision.pdf

[–]thunder_c0ck 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also the RAW score leaves out one very important factor. Transmissibility. The score they have given to HIV was 180. They are saying have unprotected sex with 180 people and you are sure to get HIV. This is insaneley low.

Isn't the figure insanely high then? 1/180 is higher than 1/1000.

Edit: granted, I realize they are estimates. And, I realize things such as your partners having other std's, when they sero converted, and viral loads all raise/lower your chances of getting their std's, I just think you may have faltered on your terminology.

Edit 2: I agree with your comment I'm regards to transmissibility. For instance, let's look at men who have sex with heterosexual women. Let us assume the man is HIV negative. In the first example, let's assume the woman has HIV. There for, according to your chart courtesy of the CDC, the man has a 1/2000 chance of getting HIV in that scenario.

Now, let's assume that the woman's status is unknown. 1/1000 women have HIV (1/1000 is for the general populace. Risk will skyrocket for drug users or amongst the African american community or street walkers). Now, couple that with the 1/2000 chance a man will contact HIV if he has sex with a known positive woman, and you are in the vicinity of 1/2,000,000 chance of getting the disease. Granted, once again, if she has another STD, your risk can effectively double. If she is recently unknowingly infected, your risk can further increase.

Either way, always always wear a condom.

The only reason I comment is because I did fail to wear a condom one time. Luckily I tested negative for everything. But, the doctors and workers at the clinic told me by and large that I would probably be okay. And, I was.

I wish I always wore a condom. The stress and "trauma" wasn't worth it. And, I still "suffer" from that anxiety today. But, we need to a knowledge that if you make a mistake, there is often a light at the end of the tunnel.

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Initially I had actually typed higher, it was one of my edits. I changed it to low because of the way he represented his score (as the number of partners you would have to sleep with rather than as a ratio or as a number of conversions per sex act) I agree higher works well but when I read it typed out it seemed like it may confuse people.

[–]jghaines 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

They are saying have unprotected sex with 180 people and you are sure to get HIV

No, that's not what they are saying. Statistics are more complicated than that. You can get HIV from a single sexual encounter or have 1000s of partners and never contract it. Their "RAW score" is simplification for the sake of clarity.

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Still he left out an important factor. He assumed that contact equates infection. Yes I know there is randome chance but he still supposed a 1 in 180 chance of getting HIV from unprotected sex. The actually figure is closer to 1 in 100,000 if you are in the Hetero population

[–]DrEdPrivateRubbers 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

And doesn't alcohol consumption raise transmissibility of all STDs by thinning the blood?

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Alcohol doesn't "thin the blood". It can slow clotting time but it doesn't make intact tissue more permeable to blood. I think there is increased STD succeptibility because of greater higher risk behavior. I've never heard of alcohol actually increasing transmissibility.

[–]my-alt 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is a well established link between alcohol abuse and increased STD incidence. The question is whether it is all down to increased risky behaviour, or whether it actually increases transmissibility.

Of 42 eligible studies, 11 included specific measures of problem drinking, of which 8 found a significant association between alcohol consumption and at least 1 STD. ... The literature supports an overall association between problematic alcohol consumption and STDs, although their causal relationship cannot be determined with certainty from these observational studies.

http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/2005/03000/Is_There_an_Association_Between_Alcohol.4.aspx

It's something I wonder about as well. It is well established that excess alcohol consumption can damage your immune system so it would make sense that it might increase transmissibility of some STDs. I mean you are more likely to get a cold or herpes outbreak after drinking heavily, so why not (other) STDs?

There have been some studies showing both increased HIV transmission and increased disease progression with alcohol use, for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24134164

[–]DrEdPrivateRubbers 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks!

[–]gospelwut 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The article talks about behavior, stigmas, and treatments. And, I understand people overreact. However, isn't it really of no difference what your "chances" of unprotected sex are? In fact, it's the impact, symptoms, and treatment that do matter.

In that regard, I'm not sure the RAW score is the best way to go out reforming sex education. Perhaps, a stronger emphasis on the "what to do if you get this" and less focus on "HOLY SHIT DEAR GOD". But, given the cumulative risk and extremely high penalty for drawing the the 1/290 (yes HIV is "not a death sentence" but...) I think that's a fair approach.

Life isn't so simple as ranking things by their risk factor, and I do think being a bit preachy (albeit kind of ineffective) about condom usage is not bad. I'm not sure focusing on "how low"the risk of unprotected sex is fruitful per se. High or low risk, you still have to get tested and a condom is still advisable until you know more.

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly the penalty is mostly social stigma. The health outcomes for HIV positive people who get and stay in treatment are as good as the general population. Unfortunately hot enough people are tested, willing or able to stay in treatment (only about 20-25% are estimated to do this) but that is an other issue all together.

And I'll say it again. There is nothing wrong with recommending condoms. The only concern is that condom education has not been all too effective. Especially in recent years where usage is declining.

[–]skerit 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I find the claim that a condom is 100% effective in protecting you against HIV quite misleading.

Especially if you consider their other "STD": pregnancy. Whey they state a condom is only 75% effective.

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is misleading. When used 100% of the time condoms decrease HIV transmission by around 90%.

[–]my-alt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It significantly reduces (by about 90%) an already low risk.

Your risk of getting HIV from protected vaginal sex with a random hook up is so low as to be virtually zero (it's about 1 in several million, you have a higher risk of being struck by lightening).

[–]TheNoveltyAccountant 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Maybe my sex ed was bad but what are the chances of contracting hi or aids by vaginal sex with someone who has hi or aids? For me this is important, extremely important. A 5x decrease is large when it's you

[–]my-alt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

With an HIV+ partner the risk per act of vaginal intercourse is around 1 in 1000 for the woman and 1 in 2500 for the man.

This is extremely low as STDs go, by contrast the easier to transmit ones have transmission rates as high as 1 in 2.

[–]thunder_c0ck 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you are an HIV negative male, and you have vaginal sex with an HIV positive female, on average, you run a 1 out of 2000 chance of contacting the disease. There are factors which can increase or decrease that risk significantly.

The moral of the story is when having sex with strangers who you don't know their status, wear a condom! However, if you make a mistake, and don't wear a condom, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

[–]Fjordo 117 ポイント118 ポイント  (47子コメント)

Pretty good, but it's missing hepatitis. There is a Hep B vaccine, but A and C are no joke.

[–]nnniiiccckkk1 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (33子コメント)

Hep A is oral-fecal and not an STD.

[–]The_Body 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (30子コメント)

Fecal-oral is, in fact, related to STDs. Common in the MFM community.

[–]abroindeed 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (17子コメント)

Common in the MFM community.

The what community? Sorry, I'm slow on these kinds of acronyms.

Edit: So, the responses are: Ass to mouth community. Two males and one female. A typo for "men who have sex with men". Still confused, though I get it. Somehow, somewhere... out there... there are people getting poo in their mouths, who may or may not have had poo on their mouths.

[–]FluffRule 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (6子コメント)

The ass to mouth community

[–]neurorgasm 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You never go ATM

[–]Daikeong 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

unless you need to make a withdrawal.

[–]ColdPorridge 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haha the double entendre here is a ridiculous visual.

[–]Halfawake 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

But thats only because you're a nerd.

[–]thefightscene 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I believe that's two males and one female.

[–]deceitfulsteve 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Probably a typo for MSM, "men who have sex with men".

[–]The_Body 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep, thanks. Must've been the tryptophan last night. Appreciate the help!

[–]StManTiS 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Men for Men ads on dating sites. AKA Gay males get Hep A.

[–]The_Body 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sorry, I meant MSM community, referred to as men who have sex with men.

[–]ThePantsParty 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Isn't that common in all communities? Guys do that all the time with girls...it's not some uniquely gay thing.

[–]AnonForSenate 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (9子コメント)

I don't think ass to mouth is all that common.

Maybe I'm a prude, or "missing out", but for me no butt stuff goes near mouths.

I strongly suspect that "ass to mouth" is incredibly rare.

Edit:

Don't worry if someone else is going to greater sex extremes than you are. It's not worth the worry.

I'm pretty experienced, and I'd say that kissing the right girl is still one hell or a rush. Having your buttonhole licked is great, but if either of you aren't into it, I wouldn't worry about it. I've never peed on anyone and I don't think I'm missing out.

[–]ThePantsParty 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Not ass to mouth...nobody does that. I just meant rimming, which is very common.

[–]TPKM 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I still think 'very common' is probably an overstatement.

[–]sexyfuntimes 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Beg to differ. I know a couple of our friends do ass-to-mouth.

[–]ThePantsParty 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well yeah, I know it exists...I've seen the videos haha. "Nobody" was hyperbole, but relatively speaking, compared to just about anything else (even somewhat more exotic things like rimming) it's extremely rare. Also I'm just gonna throw it out there that it's kind of funny that your friends just openly admit to doing atm. God, I hope they at least use enemas first or something...

[–]KosherNazi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Isn't that the same thing?

[–]ThePantsParty 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ass-to-mouth is having anal sex, then taking it out and putting it directly into her mouth. Rimming is just eating ass, which is pretty tame when you have her shower first...use antibacterial soap and it's basically completely sanitary (as much as it can be). Atm is obviously a whole different animal and nearly impossible to do in a truly sanitary way, and I for one would certainly never do it.

[–]KosherNazi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

They both sound like something the captives in a horror movie would be forced to do. Eugh.

[–]my-alt 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol, don't knock it until you've tried it. It feels pretty good for the rimee. Even better if you have a third person giving you a BJ at the same time.

Ass to mouth I've never really seen the appeal of though, and it can lead to infections (although so can rimming). I'd always be using a condom for anal anyway and would usually give my penis a quick wash as well if moving between those two (and I appreciate it if my partners do the same).

[–]alibabaXXIV 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You can get vaccinated against Hep A and B. According to my last blood test I actually have Hep B anti-bodies.

[–]coned88 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's commonly false positive. You need the more exact test

[–]jbieber 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is a hep A vaccine as well and it's not a std. Hep C is very difficult to contract through sexual intercourse

[–]S_P_R_U_C_E 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

HepB clears on its own in the vast majority of sexually transmitted cases (Adults). HepA I believe clears always after a brief illness (Illness in some cases). HepC is in debate at the moment as to if people can clear the infection or not I think. It appears some very recent treatments are "curing" some receptive individuals of the virus.

[–]i_secrete_olive_oil 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You are wrong about there being a debate as to if people can clear hep c. You can no matter what genotype of the virus you have, but having certain genotypes makes it more difficult.

[–]jghaines 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is a Hepatitis A vaccine. A combined A&B vaccine is also common.

[–]HooBeeII 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Also the new incurable gonhorea

[–]my-alt 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Antibiotic resistant gonorrhea is still almost always curable, they just have to use different drugs or stronger doses. I've had it myself, twice. The first time the initial treatment failed and I had it for over a year during which it became disseminated through my bloodstream. Got the usual symptoms (testicle pain, malaise, joint aches, rashes), eventually figured out what it was, got retested and cured in a day. No lasting problems.

The second time it took 24 times the usual antibiotic dose applied intravenously over three days. Gave me diarrhea for a few days but it fixed it.

There have been a handful of cases which were completely resistant to any antibiotics but even in the original Japanese prostitute case it cleared naturally after a few months.

It's certainly a major public health problem but the media has hyped it to an unrealistic degree, comparing it to AIDS and what have you. It's no AIDS.

[–]OhMyTruth 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

True, but there is a highly effective cure for Hep C now.

[–]birdeeboo 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I feel that this kind of article is a step in the right direction for sex education. He's really good at avoiding the typical fear-mongering I've seen in my American public school upbringing. Typical "don't have sex or you'll get chlamydia and DIE" and "Look at these terrifying pictures of diseased genitals. See, sex is the worst!!" kind of stuff. I'd like to see more educational guides aimed at explaining things without a secondary agenda (religion, abstinence, whatever).

My only issue is that this was really REALLY aimed at straight men. Yes, a lot of the information will hold true for gay men, but what are women supposed to do? There could've been more information about available vaccines, birth control, and female protection. As a female, I don't want to leave my sexual health completely in the hands of my partner. Merely asking that a guy use a condom isn't always enough when there are precautions females can take as well. Also, for my lesbian sisters out there, dental dams!!

So, I really appreciate this article. It starts an honest dialogue about sex, which is sooooo needed (I grew up in the midwest, many teens don't know shit about sex). There is a lot of room for growth.

[–]OhMyTruth 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem is that a lot of what they mentioned is inaccurate or misleading. The tone is great, but it would be better if it was written by somebody who has a clue about the subject.

[–]ep1032 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can't count the number of times I've tried to google for numbers like these with no luck, even if the accuracy can be improved, I'm very happy an article like this exists.

[–]intergalactik 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

He missed that the oncogenic strains of HPV are also responsible for penile cancers in men.

Also, women who do get lesions can have a minor but painful procedure that prevents them from getting cervical cancer

I wonder if the comment about women getting "minor but painful" surgeries up to, and including, hysterectomies would have the same flippant tone if he addressed the treatments for penile cancers.

The article was interesting but the whole "RAW score" idea is just stupid.

[–]potatoisafruit 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I had one of the bad strains of HPV, and I can tell you "minor but painful" is an inadequate description. I had to have three treatments in the end, one of which was in the hospital under anesthesia. I had to have Pap smears every three months after that for five years, and then every 6 months for the next five years. And I worried about cervical incompetence during pregnancy.

Get the vaccine! HPV can seriously screw up your life.

[–]Teebuttah 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

In the interest of balance, I'd like to share my own experience with having HPV.

Had a bad strain, abnormal pap, and underwent a colposcopy, which found mild-grade cell changes in my cervix. Was told to wait one year to see if it would clear up on its own. One year later, underwent another Pap smear that came back abnormal. Colposcopy found high grade changes this time and I was advised to undergo LEEP treatment. Did the LEEP, biopsy results told me they've removed all of it, and I am told I should now do annual Pap smears from now on.

All in all, my experiences (although at times frightening, embarassing, and uncomfortable) were not painful in the least. Even the LEEP was at worst mildly uncomfortable.

I am aware that it's worse for some women though. Just wanted to add my own experience to point out that it CAN be a mostly pain free experience.

But yeah, definitely get the vaccine if you're under 26. And don't forget to do regular Pap smears!

[–]my-alt 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Penile cancer is exceptionally rare, and even when it does happen is less likely to kill compared to cervical cancer. Cervical cancer kills thirteen women for every man who dies from penile cancer, it is a much more significant health problem.

Testicular cancer and more particularly prostate cancer is a far, far greater male health risk than penile cancer.

Annually in the US:

About 233,000 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed
About 29,480 men will die of prostate cancer

About 1,640 new cases of penile cancer will be diagnosed
About 320 men will die of penile cancer

(Source: American Cancer Society)

Almost 150 times likely to get it and 100 times more likely to kill you.

[–]secretgspot 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (19子コメント)

I read

1 in 84 chance of dying in a car accident in your lifetime

and it still makes no sense to me or makes me worry a bit more

[–]FellateFoxes 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

1 in 84 is really low odds, in all actuality. You're talking about causes of death over an entire lifetime. Everyone over the age of 50 knows someone who died in a car accident.

[–]chozar 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know two and I'm 32. It's scary and I treat driving with appropriate caution a lot more than I did when I was young. It's a very common cause of death.

[–]secretgspot 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

exactly, I am more optimistic about winning a lotto, yet odds are 1:1000000

[–]Vancha 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Also in relation to this, he compared the chance of dying in a car accident in a lifetime to the chance of getting syphilis in a year.

Compare lifetime to lifetime and it probably wouldn't be quite as reassuring.

[–]jghaines 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah. Lots of good information in the article, but this part was shoddy.

[–]vtjohnhurt 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

True, but sexual adventures are not equally distributed over lifespan. The best guess would be the odds for your pool of potential sexual partners on a particular night. Could be quite high or low depending.

One demographic at high risk of new STD infection are sexually active people in their 50s who no longer need to use condoms for birth control and who never had an STD.

[–]foutain_for_cats 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I read

1 in 84 chance of dying in a car accident in your lifetime

and

about 1 in 1800 people is diagnosed with syphilis in the United States each year

well that's some false equivalency right there

Average lifespan in US: 78.7

78.7/1800 = 4.33% chance of syphilis over lifetime of average person or

1/(84*78.7) = 1/6610 dying in car crash per year

[–]hochizo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So to overtly state the equivalent comparisons, we have the following:

  • 0.05% chance of contracting syphilis each year versus a 0.01% chance of dying in a car accident each year.

  • 4.3% chance of contracting syphilis in your lifetime versus a 1% chance of dying in a car accident in your lifetime.

[–]Scimuso 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (9子コメント)

I find this statistic hard to believe. So 1.2% of people die in a car accident?

[–]ThePantsParty 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah...just looked it up on the CDC website. Out of 2.5 million deaths, 35,000 were from auto accidents. Those odds do seem completely insane, but apparently they're correct.

[–]TheGuineaPig21 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (0子コメント)

People very, very casually accept motor vehicle deaths. Driving is probably the most dangerous thing that the average person does on a regular basis.

I think the reason people are so blasé about it is that:

  • North America and lots of other places are so insanely car-oriented that it seems almost natural
  • It is easily ignored by assuming that a dead driver was at fault

[–]cecilpl 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes. In the US, 30000 people or 0.01% of the population dies every year in car accidents.

Cars are fucking dangerous as hell and nobody seems to recognize it.

[–]Colliholic 47 ポイント48 ポイント  (20子コメント)

I'm so glad I read this. I'm 20 and just figured "as long as I wear a condom I'll be completely fine!" Seeing that a condom can't protect from some of these was a real eye-opener. I've really got to take this seriously and make sure I'm smart about my partners in the future.

[–]nbrogi[S] 79 ポイント80 ポイント  (14子コメント)

It also tries to make the opposite point: a lot of times people use STDs to scare you into doing or believing things, but sometimes they're not as bad as you'd think.

I believe one has to just know the facts.

IMO, children are definitely the worse thing that could come out of a one night stand (in terms of life-changing), and they're not a STD.

[–]Incursus 46 ポイント47 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I consider pregnancy the worst STD.

[–]frankThePlank 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a parasite that you protect after it's been removed.

[–]NotADamsel -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (11子コメント)

The propagation of our species is a disease?

[–]HaMMeReD 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's just a matter of viewpoint, ask a endangered species if we are a virus.

[–]NicholasCajun[🍰] 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, you can view it that way. What do we consider a disease? Does it slow you down? Does it make you weak? Does it sap your energy? Children accomplish all of this, and they're even a threat to a woman's life.

On a very practical level, children are a negative. They only serve to get in the way. They take up your money and time. It's just that you're biologically programmed to love them anyways. In the pregnancy stage especially, they are very much in the spirit of what a disease is, parasites specifically.

And it's perfectly fine to want kids, this isn't some rant against having kids. All biology (and human nature) is weird like that when you try to detach yourself.

[–]SqueezeMePlease 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So true from the detached perspective (source: 49f, mom to a 22m).
Happy Cakeday NicholasCajun! =]

[–]skysinsane 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why is propagation a good thing?

[–]NotADamsel 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

You exist because of propagation. So does everyone else.

If you view that human species as a good thing, then propagation is a good thing.

If you view us as bad, then having more of us will be bad.

If you view us as neither, then continuing our line is natural.

For everything that I can point to in order to say "we are good", someone can and likely will point to something bad. To prove to you that our race is a good thing lies beyond my current ability, so I will not try. I only ask that if you think that we are a bad thing, that you not remove any of us other existent people from the river of life.

[–]skysinsane 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Well I view the human race as neutral. As that is the case, I see propagation of humanity to be neutral.

So I see no reason to include propagation in my decision on the matter. Since its short term effects are almost entirely negative(mood swings, pain, loss of balance/freedom, intolerance for certain substances, etc), pregnancy itself is a negative with my values.

So it seems reasonable enough(though technically inaccurate) to call pregnancy a disease.

[–]thatthatguy 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The other side to this is that many people who have suffered the condition known as pregnancy were pleased with the outcome, and voluntarily exposed themselves to it again. It is common for sufferers of parenthood to describe the condition in positive terms.

[–]ZorglubDK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a good thing in essence. We just have terrible population control and the limiting factors to our population are dwindling or more or less ignored.

[–]SexLiesAndExercise 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think in the context of the article, we're talking about accidental pregancy.

[–]beach4k 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

More like a parasite.

[–]DecoDamsel 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think much of the point is that infections like herpes and hpv won't really hurt you. The stigma is by far the worst thing so can we please work to decrease the stigma surrounding these types of infections?

How do you plan to be smart aboit partners in the future? I'm really asking.

[–]my-alt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

HPV can certainly hurt you, although in most cases, no, it doesn't.

[–]taw1454552523 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As someone with genital warts for the last 6 years: No, they do not always go away after a couple of months

[–]nbrogi[S] 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Submission Statement

I stumbled upon this on AIDS day, and it's the best article on STDs I've ever read. It's informative and doesn't try to scare you. Only facts. Also, the author includes stats on how many partners you actually have to sleep with (statistically) to get a disease, and whether it's hard to cure.

[–]Lucretian 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (10子コメント)

What qualifies a motivational speaker to give public health advice?

In fact:

the author includes stats on how many partners you actually have to sleep with (statistically) to get a disease

There is nothing statistically sound about the RAW score risk metric the author made up and OP's misunderstanding demonstrates exactly what is dangerous about layperson articles like these.

Edit: to give people a sense of how much more complex infectious disease modeling is than simply dividing overall population by disease prevalence, here are some relevant links:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_modelling_of_infectious_disease

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_network

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/13330.full.pdf

[–]YeastCoastForever 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well, to be fair:

I realize this method is ridiculous and flawed, but the numbers are so stark that it gets the point across nicely: you’re not likely to catch anything serious any time soon.

So it's pretty clear that the writer knows that he hasn't created a new metric for STD infection rate, and he's simply using it as a linguistic tool to get his point across. Did you read the article?

[–]jghaines 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The author communicated well, but it really should've been reviewed by a specialist before publication.

[–]Lucretian 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, in its entirety.

As I wrote:

OP's misunderstanding demonstrates exactly what is dangerous about layperson articles like these

Also, the author's methodology might be off by orders of magnitude, since disease transmission is more complex than his simple algebra might suggest, in which case it's entirely meaningless even as the vague directional notion he attempts.

[–]mcherm 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What qualifies him is this: no one else is speaking.

Seriously, if you can find another article by a more knowledgeable and authoritative source that attempts to give realistic descriptions and estimates instead of fear mongering, I would love to see it.

[–]Lucretian 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

no one else is speaking

Are you seriously claiming this? Out of all the professional medical resources available online?

instead of fear mongering

What exactly do you mean by this?

[–]Karunamon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

And what would that be? Is he incorrect?

[–]my-alt 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's way off on a lot of things, yes.

I actually agree with his general point, that if you are heterosexual and use condoms you are unlikely to contract anything life alerting, but he gets a LOT of the details wrong.

As someone else pointed out he calls syphilis a virus (it's a bacteria, it wouldn't be curable with antibiotics if it was a virus) and states that the symptoms of primary syphilis are similar to herpes, which they are not at all. Single sore vs multiple sores, painless, hard, non-itchy non-leaking sore vs somewhat painful, itchy sores that leak and crust over. They are completely different symptoms.

His "RAW" score also ignores transmissibility and as such is actually off by almost three orders of magnitude for HIV. It should be more like 1 in 800,000 than 1 in 1,250.

I have no idea where he is getting that 1,250 number either, as it doesn't reflect the prevalence either. Overall about 1 in 333 American women have HIV, not 1 in 1,250, BUT if you have a random hook up with one of them there is only a 1 in 2,500 chance of them passing it on to you.

[–]greengolfballs 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Only facts

Except for the anecdotal evidence.

From the article...

I can tell you, in all of my years working as a dating coach, with all of my sexual partners, with all of the crazy hedonistic people I partied with, I’ve only known one person who had a herpes break out, a few people with HPV, and one person who had Chlamydia. I’ve never met or even heard of anyone who got HIV. I’ve never met or heard of anyone who got cervical cancer. I’ve never met or heard of anyone who contracted gonorrhea or syphilis. But I can think of probaby a dozen people who have dealt with unwanted pregnancy or had a major pregnancy scare.

[–]my-alt 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's also the fact that people don't usually discuss their STD history with random other people. One would hope that they disclose any current infection to sexual partners, but I don't usually launch into a discussion of my past gonorrhea infections with a random person I start chatting to in a bar. Purely statistically it is very likely that he HAS met people who have had several of these STDs, they just don't talk about it.

[–]righty 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's a completely bullshit article where the stats are made up and the facts don't matter. The author has a point of view and then supported it with bullshit numbers. He even acknowledged that the numbers are bullshit, but used them anyway.

[–]neurorgasm 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd like to recommend everyone check out Mark's other articles, too. I know blogs like these are dime a dozen these days, but he is really a good writer and tackles interesting topics in a practical way.

[–]alibabaXXIV 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Genital Herpes; Condoms Protect: No

I read that condoms cut the risk by 30- 35% by reducing skin-to-skin contact. I imagine wearing boxer-shorts as well as a condom would cut the risk even further.

[–]my-alt 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They do, they also mean that if you do get it you won't get it on skin that was covered by the condom. I have it, but not on my actual penis for this very reason.

[–]not2oldyet 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

***tl/dr: Honest, Frank, Informative, but too Cavalier IMO


I think the article is a good, informative, and mostly rational discussion clarifying a degree of "fear-tactic" that is common for U.S. sex education.

...but in the end I think I find it a bit too "lighthearted"

(probably not the best description but the closest one to my personal response to the material).

I think there is still a very serious message this seems to intentionally dismiss, dealing with the need to make STD awareness part of a mature decision process, as well as dealing with premarital sex and absolutely with adolescent sexual behavior.

Maybe it's a reflection of my age, but while I recognize the tremendous accomplishment that we have in being able to list HIV as not life-threatening -- I also continue to be very concerned with the "bath-house" behavior issues we nearly refused to deal with in the early days of the epidemic, as well as "3rd-world" sex behaviors that mirror immature decision making that makes the "nuisance" I think your article implies STD are - into health epidemics they can truly represent.

Maybe it's a generational thing, but I think there's a level of maturity that the article not only misses, but seems to reject or resist altogether.

...imo - respectfully...

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 37 ポイント38 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Unfortunately much of the information is incorrect. Mostly harmless inaccuracies (like the recommended treatments for gonorrea and chlamydia which are one pill and a shot in the arm; the fact that chlamydia very much can live in the throat or anus; and that they don't usually swab urethras anymore).

Not a bad read, he stressed condoms as the monopoly on safer sex, which I don't much like, but that is pretty typical.

[–]S_P_R_U_C_E 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (12子コメント)

What would be your alternative advice?

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Choose a prevention method that works for you and you are likely to actually follow. That may include: performing less risky sex acts, having sex only inside a monogamous relationship, using pre-exposure prophylaxis (look up truvada), frequent testing and prompt treatment for any STD's, selecting partners you know are negative and on PrEP or partners you know are HIV positive and have undetectable viral loads works well for HIV prevention.

All of these methods work part of the time, some of these methods are actually more effective than condoms. The point is not to discourage condom use, but condom only education has not worked at reducing the spread of STD's and it avoids having an open and honest discussion about the many ways you can reduce risk.

When I counsel people on their sexual health I avoid jumping right on the "you need to always use condoms" message and instead prefer to ask what they know about their risk and the varying methods that could negate it, what they are already doing to reduce that risk, and what they would consider doing.

[–]my-alt 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Increasing condom use HAS massively slowed the spread of HIV (which is by far the most serious problem) in many, many countries.

I agree with you that it is not the only option but from a public health point of view it IS arguably the most important to emphasise.

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is the cheapest method of contraceptive but not the most effective. The problems with condoms is they don't work if you don't use them (same as any other method). Even when worn they are still only about 90% effective in reducing transmission of HIV. The most important thing to emphasis (from a public health or personal health perspective) is adopting methods that work and the patient will adhere to.

Teaching condom use is good. Teaching that condoms are the only method (or even most effective method) of reducing hiv transmission is incorrect and a poor plan to follow.

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Also the spread of HIV has increased in the US in recent years. This is in spite if increased condom education.

[–]my-alt 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If you look at the macro picture, there have been massive decreases in HIV incidence where countries or subgroups (like MSM) have gone from low to high condom use. Compare the 1980s in the US to today.

My understanding in the US is that incidence (new infections) is stable or even declining, prevalence (people living with the infection) is however rising as once infected you stay infected for life but with modern treatment very few people actually die from it any more. By not dying, they prop up the prevalence figures.

This graph from the CDC illustrates the point well:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/images/2012-images/Incidence-fact-sheet-figure7.jpg

Comparing 2008 to 2010, the overall estimated number of HIV infections remained stable in every age group and in all racial/ethnic groups.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/surveillance/incidence/

But on a larger scale, there has been a decrease (and it was higher again in the 80s):

The rate of HIV infections diagnosed in the United States each year fell by one-third over the past decade, a government study finds.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiv-diagnosis-rate-in-u-s-declines-significantly/

The study:

The annual diagnosis rate decreased by 33.2% ... from 24.1 per 100 000 population in 2002 to 16.1 in 2011.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1889120

[–]Jasper1984 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you know about this stuff, your username makes me doubt your objectiveness.

[–]thunder_c0ck 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

What would be your alternative advice?

Getting crippled by sodomy, I guess.

Edit: siding to sodomy

[–]captainclomet 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Dat autocorrect

[–]NamasteNeeko 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What would be your alternative advice?

Getting crippled by siding, I guess.

Yes. That siding will get ya!

[–]thewhitelocust 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

recommended treatments for gonorrea and chlamydia which are one pill and a shot in the arm

The most common treatment drugs are azithromycin and doxycycline These are both most commonly taken orally. So the author is correct.

they don't usually swab urethras anymore

This is true as a primary diagnostic test; if there are no symptoms then a urine sample will be sufficient. If the patient has any discharge, the doctor will often swab.

[–]dilpill 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's becoming increasingly common for gonorrhea to be treated first-line with an intramuscular injection of ceftriaxone. Antibiotic resistance is high enough with everything else that going straight to the injection makes the most sense. If someone is prescribed oral doxycycline and isn't (fully) cured, they may not return to the doctor, and therefore start spreading the resistant strain.

Ceftriaxone is somewhat "protected" from resistance developing because it can only be administered via injection. There isn't any room for patient error ("oops, missed today's pill"), reducing the chance of non-resistance related treatment failures. Resistance develops the most rapidly in cases where individuals were treated but failed to be cured.

[–]Crippled_by_Sodomy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The most common and first line recommendation for treatment is 1 gram of Azithromycin given as one pill and 250 mg of rocephin given IM. Doxy is a second line for those allergic to cephalosporins. It is not a desirable treatment because of the course: 3x a day for 10 days. It is more likely doses will be missed with doxy and treatment failure will occur.

There is no longer any benefit to a urethral swab now that RPR testing is available. A good doctor will treat empirically based on the sight of purulent drainage and collect a urine sample. If he wants instant evidence of infection he can do a urine dipstick for WBC's. Doing a urethral swab will give him no faster or more sensetive results.

That said many older physicians operate under that belief of the 3 therapeutic benefits: diagnostic, curative, and punitive. There are some less scrupulous doctors who may do the swabs to "teat you a lesson".

Bottom line if a doctor ever comes to stick a q-tip in you pee hole, either his info is outdated or he is just a jerk.

[–]ZorglubDK 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The perfect use failure rate for condoms is around 98%.
A whole lot better than the 85% risk of pregnancy stated in the article.

[–]Paiev 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The perfect use failure rate for condoms is around 98%.

"Perfect use" is a silly metric. Nobody is perfect, but everyone optimistically thinks they themselves are. They should just stop publishing perfect use statistics and only publish average/typical use ones.

[–]ZorglubDK 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You're right that nobody is perfect. But if you're careful and resort to plan-b when the condom is suspected to have failed, 95% or higher is hopefully attainable.

[–]my-alt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The 85% is for typical use.

[–]vtjohnhurt 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The quoted odds are misleading. What matters are the odds for your pool of potential sexual partners on a particular night. Could be quite high or low depending.

[–]udbw834 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For instance, about 1 in 1800 people is diagnosed with syphilis in the United States each year. By contrast, you have a 1 in 84 chance of dying in a car accident in your lifetime, just to give you some perspective. 

I really hate it when people compare annual and lifetime risks. It makes it sound like they are either trying to sneak something past you or don't know what they are talking about.

[–]TakenSeriously 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Tbh I have always been more wary of STIs than of pregnancy. A good read.

[–]Champie 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The last one is the hardest to deal with.

[–]Chevron 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (13子コメント)

I kind of wish the pregnancy section was more detailed. Does it account in any way for hormonal birth control at all? Is the condom statistic based on the odds per encounter with normal use? With "ideal instructed" use?

[–]ThePantsParty 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's the number for normal use.

[–]Chevron 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

What does that mean? In a guide that's trying to be as practical and understandable as this one claims it seems very strange to first of all not mention birth control at all and second to have a percentage as your only information about condom efficacy. Does educating yourself and being more careful about proper use of the condom increase the percentage? What about success rate excluding incidents where the condom is known to have broken (cases which can be treated separately by many partners if they don't occur often)? There were some similar issues with the other transmission rate statistics, the pregnancy section just stood out in particular as being of little practical use.

[–]ThePantsParty 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah, more detail could definitely have been offered for contraceptives for sure.

Does educating yourself and being more careful about proper use of the condom increase the percentage?

Perfect use statistics puts it at 98%, so I guess that's a strong yes for that. (Which, just as an aside, is actually the same effectiveness as using the pull-out method perfectly as well. I was surprised when I first read that...haha) I've actually never seen any statistics subtracting out known breakages, but you're right, that would be very interesting to see.

[–]NamasteNeeko 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Note: for those thinking it's safe for them to just pull out now, remember he said that the safety statistic applies only to those who use the pull out method PERFECTLY. When you're in the heat of a passionate moment, most guys aren't particularly able to "just pull out." :)

[–]decon_ 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Also, your pre-cum may contain sperm, there are conflicting studies about this, but don't fucking risk it.

[–]skysinsane 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

From what I've read, it often contains sperm, but not enough to count as fertile.

[–]swws 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That is the odds per year with normal use.

[–]Chevron 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

How many sexual encounters does it presume per year then? Wouldn't a simple per 100 encounters make more sense?

[–]swws 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think it is actually computed by having real people go out and use condoms for a year, so it's not based on any specific number of encounters, but rather the number of encounters that people have on average in the studies.

[–]Chevron 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I guess that's useful for population statistics, but when it comes to advising individuals about risk it seems somewhat pointless.

[–]frictionlessfriction 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html?_r=0 Pretty good article on different birth control failure rates over a period of 10 years, comparing perfect use (the statistics that the company marketing said type of birth control will always use) to typical use (because in the normal course of day to day life over a period of 10 years we all get drunk/vomit/get diarrhea/take a cheeky risk in the pursuit of the shag).

[–]Chevron 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What kind of statistic is "failure rate per year"? People have anywhere from 0 to 5 to hundreds of sexual encounters per year.

[–]potatoisafruit 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is an excellent book I gave my daughter called Cycle Savvy. I wish every girl or young woman would read it. It includes great information on all birth control in real-world situations, as well as information about how your cycle works, including when you can get pregnant and why.

I read Taking Charge of Your Fertility by the same author when I was having trouble getting pregnant. Either is a great read. You'll be surprised how much you don't know.

[–]mehsvx 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I like how he is like completely dismissive of herpes. He makes it sound like no big deal.

[–]Brookx5 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He's dismissive of everything. I get that he's trying to reduce the stigma of having STDs but all of these should be treated seriously. The dismissive attitude is what causes people to ignore telling their partners as they think it's "no big deal"

[–]my-alt 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It is no big deal.

[–]Gaviero 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

From what I've read, for some people, HSV is no biggie, for others, it's rather painful and severe. For whatever reason, STDs generally affect women more adversely than men, and physiologically, women are more susceptible.

[–]my-alt 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

For most people it is really inconsequential. Your link even says as much:

Most individuals have no or only minimal signs or symptoms.

It is basically cold sores but on/around your genitals rather than your face. It is no worse or different than cold sores, in fact it is arguably better as it is hidden, but yet nobody freaks out about cold sores. The only "big deal" about genital herpes is the ridiculous social stigma due to the method of transmission, it is medically inconsequential.

[–]Bookkeep 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

As soon as I saw this title I knew it was the Mark Manson article.

I wish that guy updated more.

[–]DinosaurPizza 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

So, if someone had sex with a girl who was HPV positive but used a condom, that guy probably has HPV anyway?

...asking for a friend...

[–]ohheyaubrie 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is a good guide, though it fails to mention that it is possible to get HSV-1 genitally. Though it is much, much more rare than genital HSV-2.

[–]my-alt 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Depends on the country. In some (such as Japan and the UK) HSV-1 is as or more common than HSV-2 as the cause of genital herpes.

[–]pinkerton_jones 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Incidence rate is the number of new cases prevalence rate is the number of existing cases.

[–]Ianbuckjames 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thanks for this. I was told recently that a girl I fucked had chlamydia and I think I'm starting to show symptoms. I'm gonna get tested tomorrow but it helps to know that there's no need to panic.

[–]my-alt 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's very easily curable if you do have it, just a single dose of antibiotics. Use a condom or even better abstain from sex entirely until you know or are cured.

[–]Boo_X 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So if the 85% is correct and the 1 in 100 encounters is correct, can we assume that, on average, 1 in 667 encounters will result in pregnancy when a condom is the only protection used?

[–]faaackksake 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"it’s almost impossible for a man to catch it from a woman," - pahahaaha, this is just patently untrue.

[–]flamehorn 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Chlamydia and gonorrhea are two of the leading causes of blindness in babies. There's not much mention of the fact that you can pass these infections on to your children.

[–]gmmiller 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The abortion guilt tripping at the end seems a little out of place. For balance, here is another perspective. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/15/i-wish-my-mother-aborted-me

[–]ThePantsParty 44 ポイント45 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He didn't guilt trip anyone or say abortion is evil...he just said a lot of people have a hard time dealing with it so it's best to avoid pregnancy altogether. Seems like common sense.

[–]ksneakers 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't say he guilt-tripped as much as made the error of assuming that most people feel very guilty after an abortion. Some people do, some people don't. And both are ok.

[–]sirduke456 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Guilt tripping? I don't see that. He presents it as an option but states that for some people, there are consequences.

How would you like it to be presented? Abortion as a Plan A contraceptive?

[–]omnichronos 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This article is so reassuring that it will probably lead some readers to engage in risky behavior and catch an STD.

[–]Jasper1984 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

These reassuring facts need to be countered by some nonfactual fear, prompto!

[–]mangodrunk 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Wear condoms and get tested regularly was said a few times in the article.

[–]dbe7 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No mention of UTIs? Surely that's one of the more common infections you'll get during sex, and it doesn't even need to be PIV.

[–]Browncoat86 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This article is awesome. Good job Op!

[–][削除されました]  (6子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]omnichronos 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I think your numbers are low. Hell I'm not a prostitute but I've had over 300 sexual partners and only three or four of them hookers themselves. But then having sex with gay men is WAY easier than finding women to hookup with.

    [–]Big_booty_ho 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    You've had over 300 sexual partners? The fuck? Not judging you but damn..Thats a lot.

    [–]omnichronos 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I try to enjoy myself. I have other interests but sex with someone new is fun and I do it safely so why not?

    [–]my-alt 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Some people like sex and don't have hang ups about it. My own experience as a bisexual guy mirrors his in that it is substantially easier to hook up with a guy than a girl when it comes to casual sex.

    [–]nbrogi[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The way the article is worded, sounds like he factored that in already. Ex, your chances of getting x are 1/15 you sleep with.

    [–]Kiviks-Mustfri 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The cause of Nietzsche's madness is not identified and recent research shows that it might even have been early onset of dementia.

    There's no evidence that Nietzsche ever had sex with anyone.

    [–]Varnu 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    The RAW score for HIV is wrong. Like orders of magnitude wrong. I'm not sure about the others, but it's not correct even if the people you were having sex with had tested positive.

    [–]Kiviks-Mustfri 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    What's you number?

    [–]my-alt 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    A reasonable number for unprotected sex with a random American female would be around 1 in 800,000.

    That's working off the roughly 0.3% (1 in 333) female incidence in the United States (male incidence is higher) combined with the 1 in 2500 risk of female to male transmission per act of vaginal sex with a HIV+ woman.

    But just like the lottery someone has to win it, so it is still advisable to use a condom. That should push your risk out to 1 in several million.

    [–]Kinnsey 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    This is the kind of attitude that is contributing to the antibiotics resistance epidemic. Especially considering the rising prevalence of antibiotic resistance gonorrhoeae

    [–]darktmplr 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    The CDC article says the Gardasil vaccine is recommended for men 21 or younger, and for gay/bisexual men 26 or younger... I don't see what sexual orientation has to do with it. It also says "The vaccine is safe for all men through age 26, but it is most effective when given at younger ages."

    Anyone have more info on whether it's worth getting if I'm a (straight) male at 24? Will it work, at all?

    [–]crono09 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Gardasil protects against four of the most common strains of HPV. Assuming that you do not have one of those strains, then yes, it will work. Even if you have one or more of those strains, it's still a good idea to get the vaccine since doing so will prevent you from catching the strains you don't already have.

    The vaccine is recommended for younger men because they are less likely to have been exposed to HPV, meaning that the vaccine can prevent them from getting it. I'd say that it's worthwhile even if you're older. The only reason it's not recommended for men over age 26 is that it hasn't been tested yet in men over that age. Ethically, a vaccine cannot be recommended for an age range if they have been excluded in the research, but there's not actually any reason why it would hurt to have it. It's just assumed that most people that old have already been exposed to HPV.

    [–]intergalactik 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Men who have sex with men are at a high risk for getting HPV, which does potentially have serious consequences for men if you get the wrong strain - penile cancers and anogenital warts.

    [–]hakkzpets 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    As someone who got HPV from a sloppy one night stand, wear protection.

    It's not the end of the world, but it's quite annoying.

    [–]markhly 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    apthous ulcers are not necessarily caused by herpes