- Status
T
Thorolfr
Guest
One reason that there has been an increase in STDs is because condom use is down. As the article points out:
Last edited:
N
Nihilo
Guest
Oh, so nothing then to do with promiscuity. Mea culpa.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Promiscuity by itself doesn’t cause STDs, although it undoubtedly increases the risk. But it would be possible for someone to reduce the risk considerably if they were very careful and always practiced “safe-sex.”
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
No, but it spreads them, and to a much wider population.
T
thistle
Guest
The only safe sex is abstaining.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
But it wouldn’t spread them if the people involved used safe-sex.Thorolfr:
No, but it spreads them, and to a much wider population.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
That’s not a 100% because sometimes condoms fail.
Just ask my friend.
She’s a mommy now.
M
Maximus_Power
Guest
One word. Tinder.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
If I always wear a seat belt when I’m in my car, it doesn’t reduce my risk of dying in an car crash to zero. Seat belts don’t make driving or riding in a car 100% safe. But they reduce the chances of being killed considerably. And most people continue to ride in cars even though it’s not 100% safe. So, you’re right that condoms are not 100% effective, but if used properly, they reduce the chances of getting an STD or getting pregnant considerably.Thorolfr:
That’s not a 100% because sometimes condoms fail.
Just ask my friend.
She’s a mommy now.
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
But some things are safer than others. If I jump out of an airplane with a parachute, that’s safer than jumping out of one without a parachute. And someone could still be killed even if they are wearing a parachute.Thorolfr:
The only safe sex is abstaining.
Last edited:
N
Nihilo
Guest
…when being promiscuous.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Condoms reduce the chances of getting an STD or getting pregnant for people who aren’t promiscuous, too.Thorolfr:
…when being promiscuous.
N
Nihilo
Guest
How would one go about getting an STD if promiscuity isn’t somehow in play?Nihilo:
Condoms reduce the chances of getting an STD or getting pregnant for people who aren’t promiscuous, too.Thorolfr:
…when being promiscuous.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
The definition of “promiscuous” is as follows:
Someone could have sex with only one other person in their life and get an STD if that other person already had that STD. A person could get an STD from their spouse if their spouse has been unfaithful with only one other person who has an STD. Or someone could have sex with only a few people in their life (which wouldn’t really count as being promiscuous) and get an STD
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
And what causes condom use to go down? Reduced brain function caused by promiscuity. It’s not lack of condom availability. It’s that when people are promiscuous, their brains aren’t functioning properly, thus they can’t properly weigh that pros of no condom (increased pleasure) far outweighed by cons of no condom (STD, pregnancy, etc)
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
I was only replying your claim that STDs wouldn’t spread.
P
PetraG
Guest
I do understand that some viruses that cause these diseases are not as choosy as others, such that actual sexual consort is not strictly required in order to transmit an STD. Still, there is a very good reason why epidemiologists characterize these diseases as sexually-transmitted. They aren’t being moralistic about it. They are naming the most statistically-significant source of transmission.
So, while there are ways to reduce the risk of risky behaviors, let’s be honest in recognizing that without promiscuity* and sharing of hypodermic needles the transmission of what we call sexually-transmitted diseases would be vanishingly low. Those behaviors are the primary sources of this risk.
*(and let’s not get into splitting hairs about how many partners are required to qualify a person as “promiscuous.” The more partners, the higher the risk.)
Well, actually, I think reduced fear of contracting diseases, which does not require promiscuity. People are generally prone to an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to risks in general. Most of us are pretty bad at adjusting our behaviors based on careful and rational risk assessment, because we avoid thinking about bad things happening to us, if we can help it.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
Following Catholic moral standards or even traditional moral standards, would dramatically decrease the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Might be something to try.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
Ya think? 
- Status