Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has anyone ever thought about how rare AIDS and STD's would be if we still held sex as something sacred and intimate? I'm not pushing religion in this. I'm in reference to the 60's and the sexual revolution, free love, etc.
You're really not educated in history are you?
Sex was more readily available for men in the 1800 and 1900's then it is today. Sex was dirty, quick, and STD's were more widely spread.
You can also kiss someone, quite innocently, even a family member, then have oral sex with a partner and give it to them that way. Again, no sex nor physical contact with another human being is 100% "safe". Does that mean we should avoid contact with people unless we're wearing a haz-mat suit?
I never said you or anyone else should or shouldn't do anything. I really don't care.
I'm also not disputing that condoms reduce the risk of STDs.
My opinion is just that people would do well to consider what risk they actually do still take on even with condoms rather than just making a blanket assumption that "I'm safe because I wore a condom."
I never said you or anyone else should or shouldn't do anything. I really don't care.
I'm also not disputing that condoms reduce the risk of STDs.
My opinion is just that people would do well to consider what risk they actually do still take on even with condoms rather than just making a blanket assumption that "I'm safe because I wore a condom."
And my point is simply this: The risks involved in practicing protected sex don't even begin to get close to the danger of say, driving to work in the morning, so why spend time mulling over the insignificant?
not really. how many people are irresponsible with sex that are ALSO irresponsible with needles? very few. granted, drugs are bad, but thats a whole different thread. so, if people were responsible with sex then even with the needle issue you still end up with a huge reduction in diseases. which would greatly reduce the cost of caring for the degenerates that expect us to take care of them since they poked everything that moved instead of working to save for later on in life. its a little raw, but its true.
Not all that true no because I can change your sentence "if people were responsible with sex then even with the needle issue you still end up with a huge reduction in diseases" to "if people were responsible with drugs and needles then even with the promiscuity issue you still end up with a huge reduction in diseases".
I think as Memphis1979 suggested you are making too many assumptions about the quality of your own knowledge on disease vectors and histories in our society. Piling all the guilt on to one cause simply is not useful, helpful, informative or even accurate.
I never said you or anyone else should or shouldn't do anything. I really don't care.
I'm also not disputing that condoms reduce the risk of STDs.
My opinion is just that people would do well to consider what risk they actually do still take on even with condoms rather than just making a blanket assumption that "I'm safe because I wore a condom."
If more people used condoms, or if they were more educated in their use and more readily available, then that assumption would be more accurate.
The few cases where people contract disease from another while using a condom, is generally when the person who was already infected practiced unprotected sex with someone else.
If you use a condom one time, you've reduced your risk by 99.9%. If you and your partner have used a condom the last three times you've both practiced sex, regardless of partner, you've reduced your risk by 3X that amount.
I was at the WW1 museum this weekend and one of the items of display was a neatly typed card listing all the places you could go in Paris to get condoms.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,779,335 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by JennyMominRI
The birth control pill was introduced in the 60's. IT's one of the reason the "Free Love" movement started. Women could have sex without the risk of pregnancy
I think the impact of the whole "free love" thing has always been overstated. I think it represents more of a shift in cultural acceptance than an actual change in behavior (and the first marker of our transition from young republic to decadent empire. Prophylaxis predates the 20th century, as does prostitution, womanizing, promiscuity/prudence, teen pregnancy, romantic passion, taboo sex, etc. etc. There were coke orgies every weekend in the 1920's, for example.
I think at the core humans are what they have always been and will always be. Culture is more dynamic, but the direction of the water's flow doesn't change the prime directives of fish (if you will permit a bad metaphor).
Has anyone ever thought about how rare AIDS and STD's would be if we still held sex as something sacred and intimate? I'm not pushing religion in this. I'm in reference to the 60's and the sexual revolution, free love, etc.
Humans have ALWAYS been sexually promiscuous. The cultural belief that sex should be "sacred and intimate" is a relatively new idea...
... which is why the sexual "revolution" is so funny. It wasn't a revolution at all, just the final rejection of Victorian era ideals concerning the subject. We are naughty little hairless apes and always have been, courtesy of nature.
Has anyone ever thought about how rare AIDS and STD's would be if we still held sex as something sacred and intimate? I'm not pushing religion in this. I'm in reference to the 60's and the sexual revolution, free love, etc.
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but STD's sort of predate the 1960s. By millennia, as a matter of fact. Holding sex up as something sacred and intimate is a fairly utopian concept, in the big picture. Sexually transmitted diseases are actually closer to the norm.
We seem to forget that sex is merely a human function, nothing more-nothing less. We generally don't stigmatize people for acquiring diseases which are transmitted through food, water, air, or casual contact. Yet, because of centuries of religious-induced judgment concerning human sexual contact, we shroud sexually transmitted diseases in shame and ignorance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
