I wish women would demand more in a relationship before getting intimate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand sanctimonious people like OP. Mind your own vaginas and penises and keep your nose out of other people's sex lives. It isn't that hard.

Until drug-resistant STIs are wiped out, we should be concerned.

No you really, really shouldn't. Just do what you deem right for you. I'll do the same for myself.

Yes, that's worked so well for poor women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't actually work that way in educated populations. In educated populations, the more sex partners people have the less lilkely they are to have STDs. The mechanism behind that isn't clear, but it's probably because they are more careful and take more care of their health. They use condoms more consistently and get tested more frequently. People who have fewer partners have more STDS. Again, the mechanism isn't clear but it's probably because they feel "safe" and assume their partner is "safe" and so they don't use condoms and don't get screened as much as they should.

More people should be responsible sluts. It's better for the health of the community.

I have heard something like that before but it is not really true. It is true among gay men, and educated older urban folks, but NOT true among teens of any social background. AND, there are TONS of uneducated people around the DC area. The big bias is that in this generation, the people with few partners tend tone rural and poorly educated, but I have a feeling that will change. HPV has been on the rise in all populations. Even elderly people.

Um... no. HPV infection rate is down 40% since Gardasil came out. Also... teens, by demographic, are not educated. In fact, all you say is that it isn't true and then go on to affirm all the points.

STDs are vastly overstated in the media and they are almost non-existent in several populations. Why? because people take care and get medical treatment when they need it. The problem is that certain people don't want sex to be without consequences and exaggerate the risk.

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day, for each woman, it better be worth it. The disease risk is real and the complications are worse in women. I am not convinced that many women who have had several partners would do it a again if they had the chance.
Promiscuous men give me the icky feel. You can call that judgmental, but I just think icky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, for each woman, it better be worth it. The disease risk is real and the complications are worse in women. I am not convinced that many women who have had several partners would do it a again if they had the chance.
Promiscuous men give me the icky feel. You can call that judgmental, but I just think icky.

"Icky?" Are you 5 years old?

The disease risk is really quite low for straight people who take common sense precautions. It's almost negligible in the older, straight population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, for each woman, it better be worth it. The disease risk is real and the complications are worse in women. I am not convinced that many women who have had several partners would do it a again if they had the chance.
Promiscuous men give me the icky feel. You can call that judgmental, but I just think icky.

"Icky?" Are you 5 years old?

The disease risk is really quite low for straight people who take common sense precautions. It's almost negligible in the older, straight population.

I think I know where you are going with this.
Look, even in the whitest, most educated, most homogeneous populations, STIs are an issue. Go to Switzerland, they have it too.
BTW, as populations mix more (online dating, wives from Russia, slumbing, swinging and so on), the diseases of the poor uneducated will work their way into any population. AIDS started off as a poor man's disease, but quickly grabbed victims from all walks. OK there were only a few rich white women who got it,...but they did and they died.

[Anonymous]

This is definitely your business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, for each woman, it better be worth it. The disease risk is real and the complications are worse in women. I am not convinced that many women who have had several partners would do it a again if they had the chance.
Promiscuous men give me the icky feel. You can call that judgmental, but I just think icky.

"Icky?" Are you 5 years old?

The disease risk is really quite low for straight people who take common sense precautions. It's almost negligible in the older, straight population.

I think I know where you are going with this.
Look, even in the whitest, most educated, most homogeneous populations, STIs are an issue. Go to Switzerland, they have it too.
BTW, as populations mix more (online dating, wives from Russia, slumbing, swinging and so on), the diseases of the poor uneducated will work their way into any population. AIDS started off as a poor man's disease, but quickly grabbed victims from all walks. OK there were only a few rich white women who got it,...but they did and they died.

Your direction assumption was off. The disease risk can be clearly divided into risk for gay men vs straight people and risk for people under the age of 25 vs over the age of 25. I wasn't talking about SES or race.

[Anonymous]

I wish men would more universally respect women who were smart, independent, and able to think for themselves.

I should have simply ignored the social constraints and had a kid on my own. Because I am raising him on my own in the confines of a marriage. Where I make more, do more, and produce more. But am expected to also be a f^##ing 50's housewife on top of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't actually work that way in educated populations. In educated populations, the more sex partners people have the less lilkely they are to have STDs. The mechanism behind that isn't clear, but it's probably because they are more careful and take more care of their health. They use condoms more consistently and get tested more frequently. People who have fewer partners have more STDS. Again, the mechanism isn't clear but it's probably because they feel "safe" and assume their partner is "safe" and so they don't use condoms and don't get screened as much as they should.

More people should be responsible sluts. It's better for the health of the community.

I have heard something like that before but it is not really true. It is true among gay men, and educated older urban folks, but NOT true among teens of any social background. AND, there are TONS of uneducated people around the DC area. The big bias is that in this generation, the people with few partners tend tone rural and poorly educated, but I have a feeling that will change. HPV has been on the rise in all populations. Even elderly people.

Um... no. HPV infection rate is down 40% since Gardasil came out. Also... teens, by demographic, are not educated. In fact, all you say is that it isn't true and then go on to affirm all the points.

STDs are vastly overstated in the media and they are almost non-existent in several populations. Why? because people take care and get medical treatment when they need it. The problem is that certain people don't want sex to be without consequences and exaggerate the risk.

Do you know any reasonably attractive yet single women who aren't lesbians and are still single in their 30s/40s, etc? I do. They all got herpes in HS, college or shortly thereafter and it killed their dating. These are ladies who went to private school have advanced degrees and six figure salaries. All attractive. The stigma of stds is real. And you can catch them even if the guy wears a condom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't actually work that way in educated populations. In educated populations, the more sex partners people have the less lilkely they are to have STDs. The mechanism behind that isn't clear, but it's probably because they are more careful and take more care of their health. They use condoms more consistently and get tested more frequently. People who have fewer partners have more STDS. Again, the mechanism isn't clear but it's probably because they feel "safe" and assume their partner is "safe" and so they don't use condoms and don't get screened as much as they should.

More people should be responsible sluts. It's better for the health of the community.

I have heard something like that before but it is not really true. It is true among gay men, and educated older urban folks, but NOT true among teens of any social background. AND, there are TONS of uneducated people around the DC area. The big bias is that in this generation, the people with few partners tend tone rural and poorly educated, but I have a feeling that will change. HPV has been on the rise in all populations. Even elderly people.

Um... no. HPV infection rate is down 40% since Gardasil came out. Also... teens, by demographic, are not educated. In fact, all you say is that it isn't true and then go on to affirm all the points.

STDs are vastly overstated in the media and they are almost non-existent in several populations. Why? because people take care and get medical treatment when they need it. The problem is that certain people don't want sex to be without consequences and exaggerate the risk.

Do you know any reasonably attractive yet single women who aren't lesbians and are still single in their 30s/40s, etc? I do. They all got herpes in HS, college or shortly thereafter and it killed their dating. These are ladies who went to private school have advanced degrees and six figure salaries. All attractive. The stigma of stds is real. And you can catch them even if the guy wears a condom.

NP here.

Let me get this straight.
1. Educated, successful women >30 yrs old who are single have herpes.
2. Condoms don't protect against STDs.

Who knew?

[Anonymous]

Not the PP, but I know several attractive, single women in that age range. They don't have herpes.

I hope you are not stupid enough to think that's true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish women would demand more in a relationship before getting intimate

Maybe some women just like having sex, and don't necessarily need "more in a relationship."

Sex doesn't have to be so transactional, where she gets something in return for sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would certainly be smart to make sure partners are healthy, and protect yourself. That applies to everyone.

Let's be mindful that vulnerable women and girls often don't have these choices.

Very true, yes. Not everyone is given that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't actually work that way in educated populations. In educated populations, the more sex partners people have the less lilkely they are to have STDs. The mechanism behind that isn't clear, but it's probably because they are more careful and take more care of their health. They use condoms more consistently and get tested more frequently. People who have fewer partners have more STDS. Again, the mechanism isn't clear but it's probably because they feel "safe" and assume their partner is "safe" and so they don't use condoms and don't get screened as much as they should.

More people should be responsible sluts. It's better for the health of the community.

I have heard something like that before but it is not really true. It is true among gay men, and educated older urban folks, but NOT true among teens of any social background. AND, there are TONS of uneducated people around the DC area. The big bias is that in this generation, the people with few partners tend tone rural and poorly educated, but I have a feeling that will change. HPV has been on the rise in all populations. Even elderly people.

Um... no. HPV infection rate is down 40% since Gardasil came out. Also... teens, by demographic, are not educated. In fact, all you say is that it isn't true and then go on to affirm all the points.

STDs are vastly overstated in the media and they are almost non-existent in several populations. Why? because people take care and get medical treatment when they need it. The problem is that certain people don't want sex to be without consequences and exaggerate the risk.

Do you know any reasonably attractive yet single women who aren't lesbians and are still single in their 30s/40s, etc? I do. They all got herpes in HS, college or shortly thereafter and it killed their dating. These are ladies who went to private school have advanced degrees and six figure salaries. All attractive. The stigma of stds is real. And you can catch them even if the guy wears a condom.

For the love of God please meet more people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It doesn't actually work that way in educated populations. In educated populations, the more sex partners people have the less lilkely they are to have STDs. The mechanism behind that isn't clear, but it's probably because they are more careful and take more care of their health. They use condoms more consistently and get tested more frequently. People who have fewer partners have more STDS. Again, the mechanism isn't clear but it's probably because they feel "safe" and assume their partner is "safe" and so they don't use condoms and don't get screened as much as they should.

More people should be responsible sluts. It's better for the health of the community.

I have heard something like that before but it is not really true. It is true among gay men, and educated older urban folks, but NOT true among teens of any social background. AND, there are TONS of uneducated people around the DC area. The big bias is that in this generation, the people with few partners tend tone rural and poorly educated, but I have a feeling that will change. HPV has been on the rise in all populations. Even elderly people.

Um... no. HPV infection rate is down 40% since Gardasil came out. Also... teens, by demographic, are not educated. In fact, all you say is that it isn't true and then go on to affirm all the points.

STDs are vastly overstated in the media and they are almost non-existent in several populations. Why? because people take care and get medical treatment when they need it. The problem is that certain people don't want sex to be without consequences and exaggerate the risk.

Do you know any reasonably attractive yet single women who aren't lesbians and are still single in their 30s/40s, etc? I do. They all got herpes in HS, college or shortly thereafter and it killed their dating. These are ladies who went to private school have advanced degrees and six figure salaries. All attractive. The stigma of stds is real. And you can catch them even if the guy wears a condom.

First of all, herpes is the equivelent of catching a cold. Most people have one mild outbreak and then never again. If these women face stigma in the groups that they date in, they can find men who are also postiive for the herpes virus and date them. There are even websites for doing this. They caught the herpes virus from men in their own social class. There are men on those websites who are dateable.

There are many other men who aren't idiots, who would be willing to date a woman who is positive for herpes virus, because they know it's NBD, if she isnt having an outbreak. Because they aren't idiots.

For that reason, I doubt that the trouble with your single friends is their STD status. It's easy to blame a virus, when the problem is you.