# Safe Sex and STD's



## Otter

Hi,

I don't see a discussion on this forum of safe sex and staying current on STD tests. so, I'd like to start one.

Countries are large, so I know probably no one can answer for their whole country, but I'm wondering about safe sex practices/awareness among various age ranges, in various cultures.

I'll start by saying that here, in the U.S., in New York City at least, one can barely get through a lunch date without showing one's medical certification (up to date lab reports) showing one's STD status. This, of course, is a slight exaggeration but I believe the awareness is very high and moving into a sexual relationship can literally become an interview process.  Certainly moving into a non-safe sexual relationship is considered serious and one must expect to have "the talk".

How about in your culture. . .  or your experiences travelling?  Is there serious concern about safe sex and awareness of the full range of STD's, including HPV and chlamydia?


----------



## Daddyo

If going abroad presents an extra challenge about keeping current with the STD status of your paramour of the week (day?) because in his/her culture such matters are not discussed or even acknowledged, then my advise would be to always-always wear a condom, and then you don't even have to speak of the matter.
Want to be extra careful? Wear a condom even while having a romantic dinner, just in case things move forward too quickly.
Heck! Wear two at the same time, for that matter.

Also, when abroad, having a romantic rendezvous might be safer if you keep the lights on, as many diseases often come with glaring skin outbreaks. Even then, if you were to meet someone with the same fastidiousness about medical follow-up, you should wear a condom.

So, my message to this thread is: wear a condom. Stop the whining. Just wear it. Remember the sage words: "No glove, no love."


----------



## Otter

Daddyo said:


> If going abroad presents an extra challenge about keeping current with the STD status of your paramour of the week (day?) because in his/her culture such matters are not discussed or even acknowledged, then my advise would be to always-always wear a condom, and then you don't even have to speak of the matter.
> Want to be extra careful? Wear a condom even while having a romantic dinner, just in case things move forward too quickly.
> Heck! Wear two at the same time, for that matter.
> 
> Also, when abroad, having a romantic rendezvous might be safer if you keep the lights on, as many diseases often come with glaring skin outbreaks. Even then, if you were to meet someone with the same fastidiousness about medical follow-up, you should wear a condom.
> 
> So, my message to this thread is: wear a condom. Stop the whinning. Just wear it. Remember the sage words: "No glove, no love."


 
Well, daddyo, thanks for the feedback as to where you stand. By the way, "whining" is spelled with one 'n' and a condom won't necessarily prevent HPV. I believe not staying current on STD tests is naive (at best) for people with multiple partners (or, unfortunately, even some who only have one partner); many people carrying dangerous infections are asymptomatic. I personally know a couple of people who found themselves with HIV, although they'd been meticulously careful. 

Check online and read up on "STD's", in any language. Too many women out there with cervical cancer and pelvic inflammatory disease, not knowing they'd been exposed to HPV or bacterial infection.

Do you find in your country most people follow the advice you give about using condoms?


----------



## Daddyo

Thanks for the orthographic correction. In my country, the USA, hardly anyone pays attention to my advice about wearing condoms. Doesn't mean I stop insisting.
As for the condoms preventing HPV, hell, condoms don't even necessarily prevent _pregnancies_ but still it's one of the most important steps in pregnancy and STD control.
Perhaps I should point out that I'm not against (or for, or uninterested) about keeping current with STD's. I'm merely addressing the first half of the title: safe sex. Like the ads say, the safest thing is NOT to have sex, but if you must, wear a condom. Just do it. (Or is that a different ad?)


----------



## Victoria32

Otter said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't see a discussion on this forum of safe sex and staying current on STD tests. so, I'd like to start one.
> 
> Countries are large, so I know probably no one can answer for their whole country, but I'm wondering about safe sex practices/awareness among various age ranges, in various cultures.
> 
> I'll start by saying that here, in the U.S., in New York City at least, one can barely get through a lunch date without showing one's medical certification (up to date lab reports) showing one's STD status. This, of course, is a slight exaggeration but I believe the awareness is very high and moving into a sexual relationship can literally become an interview process.  Certainly moving into a non-safe sexual relationship is considered serious and one must expect to have "the talk".
> 
> How about in your culture. . .  or your experiences travelling?  Is there serious concern about safe sex and awareness of the full range of STD's, including HPV and chlamydia?


Definitely there is awareness in NZ, my son is a nursing student, so _he_ gives _me _lectures! (Not that I need them).
In his last year at school, a condom was one of the things in the 'kit' they got with their ball (prom?) tickets.


----------



## maxiogee

Otter said:


> By the way, "whining" is spelled with one 'n' and a condom won't necessarily prevent HPV.




whiNiNg 

Condoms won't necessarily prevent a lot of things, but better to use them than not!
Abstinence is the only sure and certain method of avoidance — but not many people seem to want to go that route.
Cast-iron monogamy can be almost as sure and certain — but again, not many people want to go that route.
Virginity is underrated and sex is hugely overrated - especially the love-free, relationship-free rutting which many seem to indulge in.
Western society seems to project a message that if you're not 'getting it' regularly then you're missing out on something huge.

Sure, sex is fun. Sure, it's thrilling - but is it more important than xyz? I don't know.


----------



## Otter

*"In my country, the USA, hardly anyone pays attention to my advice about wearing condoms. Doesn't mean I stop insisting."*


*That's very different from my experience here in the U.S. What population, age range and part of country are you talking about?*

whiNiNg 

*Thanks, M. those surely are two n's. *


----------



## Brioche

maxiogee said:


> whiNiNg
> 
> 
> Cast-iron monogamy can be almost as sure and certain — but again, not many people want to go that route.
> 
> Sure, sex is fun. Sure, it's thrilling - but is it more important than xyz? I don't know.


 
Er, how can cast-iron monogamy be only _almost_ as sure and certain?

If two virgins marry, and remain exclusively faithful to one another, how can they catch anything nasty?


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> Er, how can cast-iron monogamy be only _almost_ as sure and certain?


Only the abstinent can have perfect knowledge of their own disease-free status. I cannot guarantee thed health status of anyone else.



> If two virgins marry, and remain exclusively faithful to one another, how can they catch anything nasty?


I hate to be the one to tell you, but virgins can catch STDs. There are many virgins who are practiced in non-intercourse sexual practices.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Cast-iron monogamy can be almost as sure and certain — but again, not many people want to go that route.
> 
> Sure, sex is fun. Sure, it's thrilling - but is it more important than xyz? I don't know.


How do you know that not many people want to go the route or is that root of cast iron monogamy?
I have been momogamous for twenty years and neither I nor my wife have an STD.
This xyz thing must be something special.
I want to meet the person who invented sex to see what's next in the production line.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> How do you know that not many people want to go the route?


Do you really need me to point out all the adultery, mutiple marriage, promsicuous sex amongst unmarried people, rape, and the sexual spread of STDs to answer that question?




. said:


> or is that root of cast iron monogamy?


I'm sorry., I don't understand what you are asking.




. said:


> This xyz thing must be something special


You might not have noticed that I only said "more important" — I didn't say "better"


----------



## Otter

*What's really interesting to me is that, so far, fewer than 10% of those who viewed this thread have responded.*

*What's up with that I wonder?  *

*Otter.*


----------



## Honeypum

Otter said:


> *What's really interesting to me is that, so far, fewer than 10% of those who viewed this thread have responded.*
> 
> *What's up with that I wonder? *
> 
> *Otter.*


 
Well, I read this thread before and was just about to answer but ... I kept thinking... I think I cannot really talk about my country and my culture because it's not homogeneus. Depends on your education level, your age range, your religion, your beliefs....

One thing I find surprising (but of course it cannot be extrapolated to the whole population) is that many times young people (i.e. teenagers) are more aware about the importance of safe sex and the risks of STD's than older people. 

You're supposed to be more responsible when you get old, but in some cases happen just the opposite. Curious.. what do you think? what would you say about this?


----------



## .   1

Otter said:


> *What's really interesting to me is that, so far, fewer than 10% of those who viewed this thread have responded.*
> 
> *What's up with that I wonder? *
> 
> *Otter.*


A quick perusal of the threads on page 1 of the Cultural Discussions forum reveals that a 10% response rate is about average.

.,,


----------



## tatis

Victoria32 said:


> Definitely there is awareness in NZ, my son is a nursing student, so _he_ gives _me _lectures! (Not that I need them).
> In his last year at school, a condom was one of the things in the 'kit' they got with their ball (prom?) tickets.


 
That is so contradictory! Don't you think? 

 As parents we want to stress to our children that abstinence is the way to go, we are re-enforcing what they are tought at school (hopefully, that abstinence is the right thing to do at this stage of their lives) and then, they are given condoms, an unspoken way to say: Go ahead, it's cool, it's prom night, just wear this and... enjoy, you know you ARE going to do it anyway! just be cautious.

It's the equivalent of saying:  Dear friend, these drugs could eventually kill you, don't use them, but here is this little bag with cocaine, heroine...  just in case you want to do it, just do it carefully!  Enjoy!

I am from México, and unfortunatelly we tend to copy the U.S. in many ways.  The media, songs, magazines, commercials, fashions, etc target our youth.  Everything is accepted, everything is okay, that is the message, and if you get trapped in this mess that you are learning, too bad, it's your problem and you'll deal with that later... for now: "vive la vida loca"

Not too much of an answer to the question posed...  This is a hard topic for someone who works at a child abuse clinic, has and teenagers, and wonders everyday if your son or daughter has the power to say NO when they are being silently pushed to be sexually active.


----------



## maxiogee

Otter said:


> What's really interesting to me is that, so far, fewer than 10% of those who viewed this thread have responded.



How do you calculate that? I hope that you're not dividing the views by the contributions. Views show repeated entries when the same person comes back.


----------



## Otter

Honeypum said:


> Well, I read this thread before and was just about to answer but ... I kept thinking... I think I cannot really talk about my country and my culture because it's not homogeneus. Depends on your education level, your age range, your religion, your beliefs....
> 
> One thing I find surprising (but of course it cannot be extrapolated to the whole population) is that many times young people (i.e. teenagers) are more aware about the importance of safe sex and the risks of STD's than older people.
> 
> You're supposed to be more responsible when you get old, but in some cases happen just the opposite. Curious.. what do you think? what would you say about this?


 
*From the dialogs I've had about this, I've gathered that many  'elders', let's say those over 40, believe they're somehow exempt; that folks their own age are safer than younger people.  Don't quote me but I read a couple of years ago that, in America, women over 40 were the fastest growing group of HIV positive people.  That's very strange to me, and I'm in that age group. *

*Also, I've heard that women traveling in Europe seem to imagine that remote European areas are so pristine, they must not have disease; so they're having unprotected sex which they might not do in the U.S.  Very strange in this day and age.*


----------



## GenJen54

I found THIS article interesting today.  However, I think many Americans, at least those who have been married for some time, would find this type of test intrusive and/or insulting. 

I agree that people over a "certain age" feel they are immune to the opportunity to get AIDS or any STD, really, perhaps because they are or have been in an long-standing monogamous relationship, or perhaps because the sexual mores during the time in which they grew up were much more "restrictive" than they are today.


----------



## Daddyo

Otter said:


> *"In my country, the USA, hardly anyone pays attention to my advice about wearing condoms. Doesn't mean I stop insisting."*
> 
> 
> *That's very different from my experience here in the U.S. What population, age range and part of country are you talking about?*
> 
> whiNiNg
> 
> *Thanks, M. those surely are two n's. *



Why do you need to know? To further deepen the differences between us? We already know that I put way too many N's everywheren, non?
The reality is that our country is pretty eclectic, and I could be living right in your neighborhood and still the differences between our personal experiences would hold true. Perhaps you live in a more enlightened side of the street. Who knows?
In some of the free AIDS clinics (one of my friends is a doctor who "works" in one of those clinics) many of the infected people and many of the re-infected people very well knew that the use of a condom _*might*_ help prevent the infection. Their reasons as for not using condoms are varied, but they can roughly be summarized as "I didn't want to bother with it". Either they were not in a position to insist, or they thought it might detract something from the experience.
But it's not only the "lower-end" or the "financially-challenged" or the "educationally-deprived" (choose your euphemism) sector of society that knows the advantages of condoms, and still fail to use them.


----------



## Otter

* Hey daddyo, *

*replying to:*

But it's not only the "lower-end" or the "financially-challenged" or the "educationally-deprived" (choose your euphemism) sector of society that knows the advantages of condoms, and still fail to use them.

*I certainly didn't mean that.  I know some very lower-end, financially challenged folks who are super vigilant about contagion and some well-heeled folks who imagine they are above social disease.*

*Just dialoging.  And you're right. We may very well live on the same street.*

*Also, D, back to your first response, I'm curious why you start with a question about going abroad where it's different but you now bring up the problem here in NYC. . . . .?  I didn't say anything about the challenges of going abroad. . . . or I hope I didn't - I certainly don't recall it. *

*Otter.*


----------



## Daddyo

Sorry for derailing this interesting multi-party dialog... I must have gotten confused by:



> *Originally posted by Otter
> *How about in your culture. . .  or your experiences travelling?




And suddenly I was off to the races... It's been on my mind very much since a "not-really-close" friend of mine opted for a surgical procedure abroad, and the comments of the more brutish among my acquaintances were about how they'd indulge in many depravities if they were travelling abroad, because they believe that the potential sex partners in other parts of the world were not as uptight about sex as their American counterparts (not a pun).
I don't know first hand if this is a valid view of the "foreigners" willingness to "get down and dirty", but ever since I have ranted about wearing condoms.

So, hear me, forum, wear one, alright?


----------



## Victoria32

tatis said:


> That is so contradictory! Don't you think?
> 
> As parents we want to stress to our children that abstinence is the way to go, we are re-enforcing what they are tought at school (hopefully, that abstinence is the right thing to do at this stage of their lives) and then, they are given condoms, an unspoken way to say: Go ahead, it's cool, it's prom night, just wear this and... enjoy, you know you ARE going to do it anyway! just be cautious.
> 
> It's the equivalent of saying:  Dear friend, these drugs could eventually kill you, don't use them, but here is this little bag with cocaine, heroine...  just in case you want to do it, just do it carefully!  Enjoy!
> 
> I am from México, and unfortunatelly we tend to copy the U.S. in many ways.  The media, songs, magazines, commercials, fashions, etc target our youth.  Everything is accepted, everything is okay, that is the message, and if you get trapped in this mess that you are learning, too bad, it's your problem and you'll deal with that later... for now: "vive la vida loca"
> 
> Not too much of an answer to the question posed...  This is a hard topic for someone who works at a child abuse clinic, has and teenagers, and wonders everyday if your son or daughter has the power to say NO when they are being silently pushed to be sexually active.


I think they were being realistic... My son didn't use the thing, he says and I believe him... 
Neither of us have had any need for such things... he is too young, and I am celibate as a matter of choice, and have been for some years now. (I would prefer him to be as I am, but realistically I cannot expect that of a 19 year old.) 
But we know the theory!


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> Do you really need me to point out all the adultery, mutiple marriage, promsicuous sex amongst unmarried people, rape, and the sexual spread of STDs to answer that question?
> 
> 
> I'm sorry., I don't understand what you are asking.
> 
> 
> You might not have noticed that I only said "more important" — I didn't say "better"


1.  I think that marriage and cast iron monogamy has, is and always will be the best defence against STDs.

2.  I was making an infantile joke.  This is the first time that I have heard a native speaker refer to sexual intercourse using the term route which is a homophone of root which is slang for sexual intercourse and be unaware of the association.

3.  You might not have noticed that I only said "special" - I didn't say "better" 

.,,


----------



## Otter

. said:


> 1. I think that marriage and cast iron monogamy has, is and always will be the best defence against STDs.
> 
> .,,


 
*I'd like to tell a little story here. *

* When I was very young and married, I was in the U.C.L.A. E.R. with an infection of some sort and the young residents were asking me questions about possible STD's.  I responded, "Oh No.  I'm married", and the two of them looked at each other and laughed and suggested that my being monogamous didn't really apply to the situation. I again responded that, "Oh no! Absolutely, my husband wouldn't let me get a disease and, besides that, I'm sure he's completely faithful!"  They got a real belly laugh out of that one.  Turned out my infection was not STI related but I have never forgotten the reaction of those doctors to my naivete.*

*I believe people, supposedly monogamous or not, should be regularly or periodically checked.  STD's and STI's do a lot of damage, particularly to women's reproductive organs, if not treated early and many people carrying them are asymtomatic.*


----------



## .   1

Otter said:


> *I'd like to tell a little story here. *
> 
> *When I was very young and married, I was in the U.C.L.A. E.R. with an infection of some sort and the young residents were asking me questions about possible STD's. I responded, "Oh No. I'm married", and the two of them looked at each other and laughed and suggested that my being monogamous didn't really apply to the situation. I again responded that, "Oh no! Absolutely, my husband wouldn't let me get a disease and, besides that, I'm sure he's completely faithful!" They got a real belly laugh out of that one. Turned out my infection was not STI related but I have never forgotten the reaction of those doctors to my naivete.*
> 
> *I believe people, supposedly monogamous or not, should be regularly or periodically checked. STD's and STI's do a lot of damage, particularly to women's reproductive organs, if not treated early and many people carrying them are asymtomatic.*


So are you saying that you and your husband were in fact monogamous and that as a result you did not aquire an STD?
I am monogamous and my wife is monogamous so therefore should I waste limited medical resources to test me for something that is simply impossible for me to aquire thereby denying assistance to a person who really needs it?

.,,


----------



## Otter

So are you saying that you and your husband were in fact monogamous and that as a result you did not aquire an STD?

*Well, actually I found out a few years later that only I was being monogamous but I had, luckily, not contracted an STD or STI. My ex-husband died an early death, mostly as a complication of various diseases contracted by his uncontrolled appetite - primarily hep c (an STD), which he (lucky for me) got after I left him. Actually, hep c can be transmitted by needle or by sharing a straw for snorting drugs. So, technically, my ex-husband could have been monogamous and I might still have contracted hep c from having sex with him because he also wouldn't have told me if he was snorting drugs and he might have remained asymptomatic until after someone got it from him via sex.*

I am monogamous and my wife is monogamous so therefore should I waste limited medical resources to test me for something that is simply impossible for me to aquire thereby denying assistance to a person who really needs it?

*I'm not exactly sure how your ever being tested would deny another's need but what do I know? Maybe in your region there's a limited amount of medical tests allowed per decade.*

*All that I'm really saying is that iron-cast monogamy may not really be the case for each person in every "monogamous" relationship. I don't think you should take it personally. *

*And, as above, additionally, some people contracted killer viruses like hep c 35 years ago or so, before the 'c' strain was medically identified (or at least popularly known). So a college kid could get hepatitis (I know someone like this), spend a summer at home recovering; and find out 30 years later, say after an unrelenting case of lyme's disease, that his/her liver tests were coming up funky and then learn he/she had early on contracted the unrelenting, sexually transferrable 'c' strain of hep which also could have been tranferred to a baby, had the above described carrier been a woman.*


----------



## .   1

Otter said:


> So are you saying that you and your husband were in fact monogamous and that as a result you did not aquire an STD?
> 
> *Well, actually I found out a few years later that only I was being monogamous but I had, luckily, not contracted an STD or STI. My ex-husband died an early death, mostly as a complication of various diseases contracted by his uncontrolled appetite - primarily hep c (an STD), which he (lucky for me) got after I left him. Actually, hep c can be transmitted by needle or by sharing a straw for snorting drugs. So, technically, my ex-husband could have been monogamous and I might still have contracted hep c from having sex with him because he also wouldn't have told me if he was snorting drugs and he might have remained asymptomatic until after someone got it from him via sex.*
> 
> I am monogamous and my wife is monogamous so therefore should I waste limited medical resources to test me for something that is simply impossible for me to aquire thereby denying assistance to a person who really needs it?
> 
> *I'm not exactly sure how your ever being tested would deny another's need but what do I know? Maybe in your region there's a limited amount of medical tests allowed per decade.*
> 
> *All that I'm really saying is that iron-cast monogamy may not really be the case for each person in every "monogamous" relationship. I don't think you should take it personally. *
> 
> *And, as above, additionally, some people contracted killer viruses like hep c 35 years ago or so, before the 'c' strain was medically identified (or at least popularly known). So a college kid could get hepatitis (I know someone like this), spend a summer at home recovering; and find out 30 years later, say after an unrelenting case of lyme's disease, that his/her liver tests were coming up funky and then learn he/she had early on contracted the unrelenting, sexually transferrable 'c' strain of hep which also could have been tranferred to a baby, had the above described carrier been a woman.*


All medical resources in every country are limited.
Some countries are limited to billions of dollars.
Some are limited to millions of dollars.
Some may be limited to thousands of dollars.

In any event by definition resources are limited and a wasted resource is wasted and can not be used by somebody else.

You do appear to have been extraordinarily lucky in that you chose an unfaithful drug user as a partner and got away with it.

I was rather more vigilent about my choice of life partner and I do not have an STD.

.,,


----------



## Otter

*Yes, well thank you for that,.,,,  *

*Perhaps God has his hand on the shoulder of even some of us who have been less vigilant in some areas than others.*

*I look forward to reading further discussion of this thread topic.*

*Pumpkin time for me.  *

*Tomorrow. . . . .*


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> 2.  I was making an infantile joke.  This is the first time that I have heard a native speaker refer to sexual intercourse using the term route which is a homophone of root which is slang for sexual intercourse and be unaware of the association.


"Root" is not in common use as a common slang word in Ireland. We have enough of our own to not need to import more I imagine.


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> "Root" is not in common use as a common slang word in Ireland. We have enough of our own to not need to import more I imagine.


It _is_ a word in common use in New Zealand...


----------



## luis masci

I remember being a child, some day, I found a picture of a woman in topless in an Italian magazine. I was fascinated with it. In that time during military dictatorship in Argentina, something like that was impossible to find in any magazine.
What a difference with today, is it not? If we talking about Internet, nowadays any child justly writing as simple word as “girls or chicas” in the Google browser, will be overwhelmed by all kind of porno. Plus a terrible sex enhancing via T.V. and other media. 
Front this panorama the Catholic Church is opposing to any campaign promoting condom use, and instead they promote for abstinence. 
I wonder whether the Catholic leaders are hypocrite or naive enough to think it’s really an issue in today’s world.
I find this contradictory a lot more that you are saying here:


tatis said:


> That is so contradictory! Don't you think?
> 
> As parents we want to stress to our children that abstinence is the way to go, we are re-enforcing what they are tought at school (hopefully, that abstinence is the right thing to do at this stage of their lives) and then, they are given condoms, an unspoken way to say: Go ahead, it's cool, it's prom night, just wear this and... enjoy, you know you ARE going to do it anyway! just be cautious.
> 
> It's the equivalent of saying: Dear friend, these drugs could eventually kill you, don't use them, but here is this little bag with cocaine, heroine... just in case you want to do it, just do it carefully! Enjoy!


----------



## maxiogee

luis masci said:


> I wonder whether the Catholic leaders are hypocrite or naive enough to think it’s really an issue in today’s world.



I am, as I have often pointed out, an agnostic and no spokesperson for the Catholic Church, but one gets tired of seeing it being bashed continually for standing by its principles.

The circumstances don't change anything, the morality of an action is either right or wrong. 
If one takes a stance and, drawing upon the best minds one can find, comes up with a philosophy on X, then it would seem that to change that philosophy to suit the apparent needs of the day means that the philosophy was ill-founded to begin with. Now, if your very existence is based on that philosophy what does changing it at whim say about one's very nature?

Would you have the Catholic Church recant its teachings, just to suit some people who can't or won't control their lust, at a time when not to do so is to endanger one's body, if not one's imputed immortal soul?

--edit--
There's a thread around here somewhere about non-American's criticising American politicians and policies. 
How does that relate to non-Catholics criticising the Pope and the Catholic Church? 
Their pronouncements have less direct impact on non-Catholics than those of American politicians have on non-Americans.
If you aren't a Catholic, what does the opinion of old men in the Vatican have to do with you?
I don't criticise the Chief Rabbi, nor do I have opinions on the religious statements of the Dalai Lama. What gives people the right to bad-mouth the Pope?


----------



## badgrammar

Well most people, yourself apparently excluded, must accept that there are no guarantees in life, and that you can never completely know another person.  It is always possible that one partner slips up, has another sex partner, and the spouse never knows.  Both men and women do that (we tend to think it's more something men do, but women also have affairs).

So while you certainly have no reason to rush to take the test (and I'm not trying to make you paranoid), even if you are 100% monogamous, you cannot be sure your partner has been.  There is nothing new under the sun, and that kind of thing can happen to otherwise normal, intelligent, loving and caring people.  

Edited to add that your choice of words in addressing Otter seem somewhat condescending and judgemental, although perhaps you did not mean it that way? 



. said:


> All medical resources in every country are limited.
> Some countries are limited to billions of dollars.
> Some are limited to millions of dollars.
> Some may be limited to thousands of dollars.
> 
> In any event by definition resources are limited and a wasted resource is wasted and can not be used by somebody else.
> 
> You do appear to have been extraordinarily lucky in that you chose an unfaithful drug user as a partner and got away with it.
> 
> I was rather more vigilent about my choice of life partner and I do not have an STD.
> 
> .,,


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:


> I am, as I have often pointed out, an agnostic and no spokesperson for the Catholic Church, but one gets tired of seeing it being bashed continually for standing by its principles.
> 
> The circumstances don't change anything, the morality of an action is either right or wrong.
> If one takes a stance and, drawing upon the best minds one can find, comes up with a philosophy on X, then it would seem that to change that philosophy to suit the apparent needs of the day means that the philosophy was ill-founded to begin with. Now, if your very existence is based on that philosophy what does changing it at whim say about one's very nature?
> 
> Would you have the Catholic Church recant its teachings, just to suit some people who can't or won't control their lust, at a time when not to do so is to endanger one's body, if not one's imputed immortal soul?
> 
> --edit--
> There's a thread around here somewhere about non-American's criticising American politicians and policies.
> How does that relate to non-Catholics criticising the Pope and the Catholic Church?
> Their pronouncements have less direct impact on non-Catholics than those of American politicians have on non-Americans.
> If you aren't a Catholic, what does the opinion of old men in the Vatican have to do with you?
> I don't criticise the Chief Rabbi, nor do I have opinions on the religious statements of the Dalai Lama. What gives people the right to bad-mouth the Pope?


As a Protestant (well, Anglo-Catholic really) I fully agree with you, Maxiogee...


----------



## luis masci

maxiogee said:


> How does that relate to non-Catholics criticising the Pope and the Catholic Church?
> Their pronouncements have less direct impact on non-Catholics than those of American politicians have on non-Americans.
> If you aren't a Catholic, what does the opinion of old men in the Vatican have to do with you?


What is happening with countries like this one, is the Catholic Church has strong influence over the government. At the point that anti conception methods and HIV prevention campaigns are quite light or inexistent because the Church doesn’t like it. 
Meantime HIV is spreading more and more each year, month , day.


----------



## maxiogee

(Off-topic, I know, but very relevant)


badgrammar said:


> Well most people, yourself apparently excluded, must accept that there are no guarantees in life



One can guarantee that…
… people you know will die
… people will lie, cheat and steal
… bad things happen unexpectedly
… … so will good things
… beauty will show itself in unexpected places
… … so will ugliness
and most interestlingly of all, there is always something to be learnt.


----------



## Otter

luis masci said:


> What is happening with countries like this one, is the Catholic Church has strong influence over the government. At the point that anti conception methods and HIV prevention campaigns are quite light or inexistent because the Church doesn’t like it.
> Meantime HIV is spreading more and more each year, month , day.


 
*Do you suppose this is true of most countries where the Catholic Church has strong influence over the government?*

*I'm wondering if there are suppressed statistics regarding STD's/STI's.*

*Anyone. . .?*

*Edited to include "religious right", as well as Catholic Church, although I believe "religious right" mostly applies to U.S., yes?*


----------



## Otter

*Hard for me to believe this thread has gone dead from lack of interest.  Well, maybe so.  *
*Is it possible this subject is still as taboo as some warned me it is?*

*Otter.*


----------



## tatis

luis masci said:


> What is happening with countries like this one, is the Catholic Church has strong influence over the government. At the point that anti conception methods and HIV prevention campaigns are quite light or inexistent because the Church doesn’t like it.
> Meantime HIV is spreading more and more each year, month , day.


 
I don't think that is necessarily the reason, if it were, the government would expedite the teaching of natural contraception, abstinence and chastity (not the same) and give an alternative solutions to abortion and sex out of marriage... another way to put the blame in the Catholic Church, o well...


----------



## .   1

badgrammar said:


> Well most people, yourself apparently excluded, must accept that there are no guarantees in life, and that you can never completely know another person. It is always possible that one partner slips up, has another sex partner, and the spouse never knows. Both men and women do that (we tend to think it's more something men do, but women also have affairs).
> 
> So while you certainly have no reason to rush to take the test (and I'm not trying to make you paranoid), even if you are 100% monogamous, you cannot be sure your partner has been. There is nothing new under the sun, and that kind of thing can happen to otherwise normal, intelligent, loving and caring people.
> 
> Edited to add that your choice of words in addressing Otter seem somewhat condescending and judgemental, although perhaps you did not mean it that way?


As Otter is still active in this thread to the point of bumping the thread should not Otter take me to task for any condescending or judgemental remarks.
This 'tag-team' tactic of a third party getting their knickers in a twist is cumbersome and difficult to deal with.
It could well be that Otter took my comments in the same way as I took Otter's comments.
Otter told us that her first choice of life partner did not last because of divergent lifestyles.  Her partner led a hidden lifestyle that actually placed Otter's health and life at risk and then used this to further her argument.
I am being told that I should take an expensive and intrusive test to confirm something that I already know based on the lifestyles of people who live a life very different to mine.
I give my wife no reason to look for love in all the wrong places and my wife returns the compliment so we are two who can avoid the test and leave those limited medical resources available for people who actually need them.
Before I married I thought that sex was a bust.
It was full of anticipation and angst and furtive glances and quick sweaty bumping and grinding and it was not really satisfying.
Even after I married it took about three years for my wife and I to be comfortable enough to find out what satisfied the other and I was finally able to achieve an orgasm.  That made life interesting and the following seventeen years have let me know just how hollow sex can be with a person who does not hold my pleasure to be as important as her pleasure and we both have this pleasure with no risk.
The best sex comes with a long term partner who loves me and I have met only one person who fits that bill so I will stick with her and avoid the tests.

.,,


----------

