A Cure for all STD's

[Spirithound]

There is another form of safe sex but it is still a mortal sin so I won’t mention it here.

I don’t think you’re correct…contraception is not “safe”, not a prevention of STDs, sterilization is not safe, because many STDs are spread by mere contact.

 

[jmcrae]

There is another form of safe sex but it is still a mortal sin so I won’t mention it here.

Thank you.

I don’t think you’re correct…contraception is not “safe”, not a prevention of STDs, sterilization is not safe, because many STDs are spread by mere contact.

Uhm, uh - that actually wasn’t the first thing I thought of when I saw his message.

(Now you all say “OOOOHHHHHH, that,” and you all turn bright red. )

 

[Greg27]

It is true monagamy reduces the risk of catching many STD’s, but there are a couple of problems with the assumption it is the best and perfect way to stop all STD’s. Firstly, viruses and bacteria are always evolving; a method which might work to slow or stop it today may not be effective tomorrow. Many diseases for example are now resistant to antibiotics. Similarly in future, STD’s may well be transmitted in a way that even in monagamous relationships cannot prevent. Second, monogamy assumes people will always be faithful; the reality is, many people cheat in relationships, and in modern society, many people have several sexual relationships over their lifetime and see nothing morally wrong with that.

I believe monogamy is reasonable both as a social policy to combat STD and also as a moral theology binding on Catholics, but not everyone in society is Catholic. Therefore there have to be other alternatives available when monogamy fails, or to those who don’t subscribe to the teachings of the CC or any religion for that matter on sexual ethics, but which can be justified using reason in a way that a non-believer can accept.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

Monogamy!

That’s right boys and girls, the panacea for STDs has finally been found. Using this new found medical technique, all STDs can easily be whipped off the face of the planet in under 100 years. Never again will we need to face the scourge of Syphilis, or the devastating effects of AIDS (though it is still possible that this one may be around in an extremely attenuated form), or the embarrassment of herpes.

Per the latest studies on this new medical treatment, being completely committed to only one partner, and waiting till marriage acts as 100% promise against contracting STD’s. If approved by the FDA, the ACLU and the MPAA, it will become the standard recommendation by all doctors in the hopes of beating this tragedy

Test studies have shown that when comparing 1000 couples adhering to this medical regiment, The astonishing results indicated no one contracted any STD of Any kind; something no other medical technique can claim about any ailment

A new day has dawned… Talk to your Health provider today to see if monogamy is right for you.

Some possible side effects may include an increase in ridicule from popular culture, A yearning sensation devoted only to your spouse, Increased affection for your spouse, and in some cases, children. Please report any of these conditions to your local parish as they may be signs of a truly blossoming relationship. Monogamy is not subject to lawsuits related to unexpected Children…

(Just an in jest statement. but a powerful statement all the same. Something we all know…)

In Christ

Outstatnding work!

 

[catholicbuckeye]

It is true monagamy reduces the risk of catching many STD’s, but there are a couple of problems with the assumption it is the best and perfect way to stop all STD’s. Firstly, viruses and bacteria are always evolving; a method which might work to slow or stop it today may not be effective tomorrow. Many diseases for example are now resistant to antibiotics. Similarly in future, STD’s may well be transmitted in a way that even in monagamous relationships cannot prevent. Second, monogamy assumes people will always be faithful; the reality is, many people cheat in relationships, and in modern society, many people have several sexual relationships over their lifetime and see nothing morally wrong with that.

I believe monogamy is reasonable both as a social policy to combat STD and also as a moral theology binding on Catholics, but not everyone in society is Catholic. Therefore there have to be other alternatives available when monogamy fails, or to those who don’t subscribe to the teachings of the CC or any religion for that matter on sexual ethics, but which can be justified using reason in a way that a non-believer can accept.

Yes, little girls may get HPV in the future when they are forced by the government to receive immunizations (to combat cervical cancer from HPV infection, which ofcourse is a direct result of the hypersexual society we have today after “safe sex” liberated us to do whatever felt good). That would be one way for a sexually transmitted disease to not be transmitted via sex. Ofcourse, some people may transmit HIV via a needle. Other STDs may be passable to a child from a parent. Otherwise, yes there will always be viruses and bacterium of all sorts that our bodies will have to fend off, but I am assuming the definition of “Sexually Transmitted Disease” will still mean “a disease that is transmitted sexually” - meaning monogamy will still work. And those who don’t subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church can subscribe to the teachings of that guy who comes on my tv for 30 second ads beginning with “I have (insert STD here)…”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, little girls may get HPV in the future when they are forced by the government to receive immunizations (to combat cervical cancer from HPV infection, which ofcourse is a direct result of the hypersexual society we have today after “safe sex” liberated us to do whatever felt good). That would be one way for a sexually transmitted disease to not be transmitted via sex. Ofcourse, some people may transmit HIV via a needle. Other STDs may be passable to a child from a parent. Otherwise, yes there will always be viruses and bacterium of all sorts that our bodies will have to fend off, but I am assuming the definition of “Sexually Transmitted Disease” will still mean “a disease that is transmitted sexually” - meaning monogamy will still work. And those who don’t subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church can subscribe to the teachings of that guy who comes on my tv for 30 second ads beginning with “I have (insert STD here)…”

There is a classical judgement error that in decision science is called, “The Mother of All Foul-ups” (or something like that )

It consists of making two mistakes that work together to produce a disaster. The first error is to select inappropriate decision criteria (e.g., “can you be absolutely sure?” or “will it work in every case?”)

The second error is to apply those criteria to only one course of action.

A man makes a parachute jump. When his main parachute opens, it is badly damaged. He sees he is falling at 90 fps. He has two choices – cut away the main and deploy the reserve, or try to ride it in.

He asks himself, “Can I be absolutely sure the reserve will open?”

Since no one can be absolutely sure of anything human, the answer is “no.” He hits the ground at 60 mph and doesn’t walk away from it.

 

[JimG]

Just went back and re-read post #1.

Although it was presumably tongue it cheek, it still seems a pretty reliable solution.

heisenburg:

Per the latest studies on this new medical treatment, being completely committed to only one partner, and waiting till marriage acts as 100% promise against contracting STD’s. If approved by the FDA, the ACLU and the MPAA, it will become the standard recommendation by all doctors in the hopes of beating this tragedy

I guess it could be summed up in this way:

Remain a virgin until marriage. This includes: no oral sex.
Marry a virgin.
Stay faithful to your partner.

Would that be good advice or not?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just went back and re-read post #1.

Although it was presumably tongue it cheek, it still seems a pretty reliable solution.

I guess it could be summed up in this way:

Remain a virgin until marriage. This includes: no oral sex.
Marry a virgin.
Stay faithful to your partner.

Would that be good advice or not?

Sure – as opposed to, “Hey, we know you won’t follow that advice, so here’s something that will delay you getting a fatal disease for a while – as long as you always use it perfectly, and never when drunk, on drugs, or swept away by passion. You’ll eventually get a fatal STD, of course, but you can party hardy until then – and spread the disease to all your partners as a bonus.”

 

[Spirithound]

It is true monagamy reduces the risk of catching many STD’s, but there are a couple of problems with the assumption it is the best and perfect way to stop all STD’s. Firstly, viruses and bacteria are always evolving; a method which might work to slow or stop it today may not be effective tomorrow. Many diseases for example are now resistant to antibiotics. Similarly in future, STD’s may well be transmitted in a way that even in monagamous relationships cannot prevent. Second, monogamy assumes people will always be faithful; the reality is, many people cheat in relationships, and in modern society, many people have several sexual relationships over their lifetime and see nothing morally wrong with that.

If an STD is T in a way that is not S, then although it is a D, it is not ST.
And of course monogamy assumes ppl will be faithful. God wants us to be holy as He is holy. To do anything else is a really really bad idea.

 

[Greg27]

If an STD is T in a way that is not S, then although it is a D, it is not ST.
And of course monogamy assumes ppl will be faithful. God wants us to be holy as He is holy. To do anything else is a really really bad idea.

I think you are missing my point. Monogamy is a good ideal, like many ideals, but in practical situations people don’t live up to this ideal. If a person cheats once and contracts an STD and even from then on remains in a monagamous relationship, they can still transmit the disease to their partner, and the ideal will not stop the infection from happening.

Monogamy is a very good shield against STD’s and an excellent way of prevention, but the only perfect form of preventing STD infection is total and absolute abstinence from any kind of sexual activity. Monogamy offers good, but never infallible and perfect, protection in real life (as people can always fall short of the ideal, as with any other).

 

[JimG]

I think you are missing my point. Monogamy is a good ideal, like many ideals, but in practical situations people don’t live up to this ideal. If a person cheats once and contracts an STD and even from then on remains in a monagamous relationship, they can still transmit the disease to their partner, and the ideal will not stop the infection from happening.

Monogamy is a very good shield against STD’s and an excellent way of prevention, but the only perfect form of preventing STD infection is total and absolute abstinence from any kind of sexual activity. Monogamy offers good, but never infallible and perfect, protection in real life (as people can always fall short of the ideal, as with any other).

It’s about as perfect a prevention as you can get if you abstain till marriage, marry a virgin, and are faithful in marriage. In other words, if you follow the moral precepts of the Catholic Church, you will be pretty safe.

 

[Spirithound]

I think you are missing my point. Monogamy is a good ideal, like many ideals, but in practical situations people don’t live up to this ideal. If a person cheats once and contracts an STD and even from then on remains in a monagamous relationship, they can still transmit the disease to their partner, and the ideal will not stop the infection from happening.

Monogamy is a very good shield against STD’s and an excellent way of prevention, but the only perfect form of preventing STD infection is total and absolute abstinence from any kind of sexual activity. Monogamy offers good, but never infallible and perfect, protection in real life (as people can always fall short of the ideal, as with any other).

I perceive that you are advocating total abstinence as the only perfect protection from STDs. You are then advocating a more difficult ideal in place of another ideal. I advocated monogamy (in its strictest form), and you dismissed that by saying people aren’t perfect. You then went on to say that abstinence works, but you have neglected to say that people aren’t perfect. There are many people who are 100% (not 99.9999%) faithful in their marriage, and in those cases, monogamy works to protect against STDs. Abstinence works the same way.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

I think you are missing my point. Monogamy is a good ideal, like many ideals, but in practical situations people don’t live up to this ideal. If a person cheats once and contracts an STD and even from then on remains in a monagamous relationship, they can still transmit the disease to their partner, and the ideal will not stop the infection from happening.

Monogamy is a very good shield against STD’s and an excellent way of prevention, but the only perfect form of preventing STD infection is total and absolute abstinence from any kind of sexual activity. Monogamy offers good, but never infallible and perfect, protection in real life (as people can always fall short of the ideal, as with any other).

With all due respect, that is a lousy attitude and outlook and I think unfortunately it is more and more prevalent today. What low expectations of people. People should be held to the standards of monogamy within a relationship and it shouldn’t just be brushed aside b/c “eh, it’s just not practical anyways” - we do that with everything these days - I know it’s not too often that G.W. Bush can be quoted, but I think “the soft bigotry of low expectations” is applicable.

 

[Greg27]

With all due respect, that is a lousy attitude and outlook and I think unfortunately it is more and more prevalent today. What low expectations of people. People should be held to the standards of monogamy within a relationship and it shouldn’t just be brushed aside b/c “eh, it’s just not practical anyways” - we do that with everything these days - I know it’s not too often that G.W. Bush can be quoted, but I think “the soft bigotry of low expectations” is applicable.

You seem to think I was arguing for some kind of moral relativism. I did not say that monogamy or self-control in sexual matters should not be practiced, or that they should be totally rejected. You are attributing arguments to me I did not make, which is basically setting up a straw man of me rather than addressing the point I was trying to make. The original poster claimed, in support of his beliefs:

"Per the latest studies on this new medical treatment, being completely committed to only one partner, and waiting till marriage acts as 100% promise against contracting STD’s. If approved by the FDA, the ACLU and the MPAA, it will become the standard recommendation by all doctors in the hopes of beating this tragedy

Test studies have shown that when comparing 1000 couples adhering to this medical regiment, The astonishing results indicated no one contracted any STD of Any kind; something no other medical technique can claim about any ailment"

This claim was that monogamy was an 100% effective prevention technique for contracting all kinds of STD’s, and he also claimed to have evidence or proof based on medical studies. To me it was at least a questionable assumption that everyone who believed in the ideal of monogamy would actually be monagamous. It was not that monogamy or self-control or faithfulness in themselves were not virtues, but what I found questionable was the assumptions behind this poster’s arguments, and also the lack of evidence he presented for his arguments. I tried to point this out by giving possible counter-examples, and one should know that even if people believe in monogamy or express belief in it, they do not always live up to their ideals. I’ve read plenty of posts here in the moral theology sections where people engage or have engaged in sexual conduct, inside and outside of marriage, which falls quite short of what the Church teaches to be ideal, and it is in my view reasonable to expect that not everyone will be able to live up to the ideal of monogamy or lifelong marriage. This does not prove that some people do live up to the standards of monogamy or lifelong monogamous marriage, but neither in my view is there a universal (in the logical sense) or an empirical proof that all people are going to be mongamous all of the time and therefore there will be no STD’s.

STD’s exist and even with widespread teaching of the value and ideals of marriage and monogamy, from Africa to the U.S., they continue to exist and spread. Therefore in my view it is better to teach the virtues which minimise the risk of catching STD’s as much as possible, as well as providing appropriate care for those who catch them, rather than claiming there is an absolutely perfect and foolproof magic cure for all STD’s, unless one can show peer-reviewed proof (from a scientific journal) there is a 100% effective method for preventing STD infection and transmission, other than that of complete abstinence. If so, I will gladly acknowledge I am in error, but I look for evidence and reasoned argument to support a position, rather than simply repeating a formula of dogma, which in my view should always agree with and be supported by, reason and or evidence.

Perhaps my objection can be more clearly stated as follows.

The poster seems to claim:

1. Monogamy is a 100% effective method of preventing all STD’s
2. All couples who practice monogamy will have this effective shield
3. Therefore monogamous couples are perfectly protected from STD’s
4. Therefore, this is the way to cure all STD’s

If the poster had argued from steps 1 to 3, I don’t think I would have had much of an objection. The conclusion seems to follow reasonably from the premises. But the poster seemed to go overboard and claimed that monogamy was the cure for all and every kind of STD that exists. This in my view is more than is warranted from the evidence as in premise 2) there is the assumption all couples or people who are sexually active will practice monogamous sex (which is a very big assumption to make, given the existence of many types of sex outside of monogamy and marriage across the world) or everyone who is not in a monogamous relationship has always only ever been monogamous. These assumptions in my view are contrary to the evidence, which suggests at least some people, some of the time, are not monogamous or have not been in monogamous relationships, at least in the past.

 

[Greg27]

I will give a concrete counter-example where one fellow who posted here (I apologise in advance for embarressing them, but their post is public here so I will use it as evidence) had genital herpes, which is an STD, but had not had sexual relations. The thread is called ‘Is Herpes an Impediment to Marriage?’ and is found in the Family Forum. The poster described their situation as follows:

"(I also posted this question on the ask an apologist part of the forum to get expert advice, but I figures maybe many of you would already know about this…)

I have a question. If you dont think it is appropriate to put on the forum please let me know. I am friends with a girl who I hope one day to marry. She lives in Russia. I am working on helping her to the States, which will be a big job in itself and a miracle if I could she could even get in the door.

We are in a chaste relationship right now as friends but I would like to start a courting relationship.

Here is the deal, I have either gential warts or gential herpes…either way some kind of skin problem…

I still have not gone to a doctor for it. I am not sure how I got it as I have never had sex, but I think I might have got it some other way.

Anyway, is this an impediment to marriage?

Secondly, how should I bring this up and when is the best time to bring it up to her?

For example, if I wait until the last minute after she comes to America and all, leaving her home, wouldn’t that be dishonest.

But at the same time is it something to bring up now because I am not 100 percent sure I will marry her?

If I end up not marrying her and pursue another relationship with a woman with marriage in mind (which are what I want all of my future relationships to be) what is the right time to bring this up?"

One can get GH a number of ways. One is various forms of sexual contact, but it can also be contracted by touching an infected area. This contact might involve a means of contact which is not sexual, however most routes of infection are likely to be sexual.

In the case above, even if the couple remained monogamous, the infected fellow could transmit his disease to his future wife when he consumated the marriage. In their case, even a perfectly monagamous relationship would not form a 100% effective shield against STD’s.

The argument should be in my view then rephrased so that it is lifelong monogamy between couples uninfected with any type of STD, which is an 100% effective shield against being infected with an STD, not simply 100% monogamy between couples, as the above counter-example shows a couple could be monogamous but one partner can have a disease which can be contracted non-sexually but transmitted quite easily via sexual activity. Monogamy and lifelong marriage are in my strong view, ideals which should be valued, particularly when it comes to sexual relationships, but care must be taken when we make arguments about human behaviour and its ideals, so our arguments about virtue are well supported by both reason, our sense of conscience, and by empirical facts.

 

[Spirithound]

…but neither in my view is there a universal (in the logical sense) or an empirical proof that all people are going to be mongamous all of the time and therefore there will be no STD’s…

…unless one can show peer-reviewed proof (from a scientific journal) there is a 100% effective method for preventing STD infection and transmission, other than that of complete abstinence…

I’ve stated before that you are applying different standards to monogamy and abstinence. You are making the assumption that all people who hold the value of abstinence will live up to that ideal.

As for your counter-example, which i have neglected to cite, but it’s the one right above me, I’ve read that thread, and there is doubt as to whether the young man actually has herpes. Therefore your counter-example is invalid.

 

[Greg27]

I’ve stated before that you are applying different standards to monogamy and abstinence. You are making the assumption that all people who hold the value of abstinence will live up to that ideal.

As for your counter-example, which i have neglected to cite, but it’s the one right above me, I’ve read that thread, and there is doubt as to whether the young man actually has herpes. Therefore your counter-example is invalid.

True, you are correct in my own assumption. But, in that case, I think it does show in a way the problem in the original argument; the assumption people who aim to be monoagamous will always be so perfectly.

I think it is enough to say in my own view, in theory the argument monogamy is effective at preventing STD’s is fine, but in reality, we cannot assume that any ideal method we devise will perfectly (in the sense of complete 100% efficiency) wipe out or prevent all STD infections that could possibly occur. Perhaps only some advanced future technological breakthrough in medicine, in the distant future, could achieve that.

 

[goofyjim]

This whole thread is still titled wrong. For example you prevent AIDS, there is no cure.

 

[Catholic_JIMMY]

I don’t know that monogamy is a “cure” for STD’s. But perhaps 2 people who remain virgins until they marry and then remain monogamous is. Sadly that isn’t the “norm” in todays society.

Kathy

Correct, my mom does not even think I will stay chaste till marriage .

 

[Nepenthe]

Somebody pointed out already that for the Shakers (relatively well-off, marvelous craftspeople and artists, and as pious and abstinent as once could wish - this didn’t exactly work out all that well.