|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: No pill, pull-out: where are we going with sex?
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Francophile:
You may be right. A lot of women fear absolute aloneness in the world and know that not having children guarantees that in old age.
Having kids doesn't guarantee you'll be spared such loneliness, though.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
Well its a better bet than being a childless spinster.
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
I was a LEM for many years and old people abandoned by their children were more unhappy than those who were always childless.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Jade Constable: But that's nonsense. Some people prefer it like that, so it cannot be objectively true that it 'ruins' anything at all.
I'm sure that Nicolemr was giving a personal opinion, not an objective truth that would be valid for all.
Personally, I don't think that pull-out would really work for me either. It takes longer to pull a 747 out of a hangar than a Cessna two-seater, if you catch my drift.
Sorry ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Aspie literalism and insomnia together aren't very helpful. Sorry to you and nicolemr.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francophile
Shipmate
# 17838
|
Posted
How do you know how unhappy someone is?
Posts: 243 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jade Constable: Sorry Aspie literalism and insomnia together aren't very helpful. Sorry to you and nicolemr.
No problem. Hope you get over your insomnia.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Those are all examples of overt pressure. You also need to factor in situational norms. Specifically the fact that many women are choosing - not to remain childless, but to delay starting a family until they have got their career on the road.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
I agree anoesis that the societal and familial pressure to have children is huge but in the US it is overshadowed by the detriment to life and livelihood that motherhood brings about.
a. Seriously damages careers, especially academic.
b. Increases chances of pay inequality.
c. Leaves mothers unsupported in caring for children.
d. No paid maternal leave.
Women are pressured to have kids but then offered little or no support and are penalized on all fronts for choosing that path. If you are working or middle class it's even worse. It's no wonder women are ambivalent and more and more are choosing to remain childless.
Hey Art Dunce - your post caught my eye by mentioning academic careers.
a. I'm a man who has abandonned a lectureship to look after his kids.
b. My wife earned say 50% more than me before I gave up, and a realistic guess based on the kind of jobs I could get now would make that more like 100-200%.
c. She's rarely home in the week, and if we really want to explore 'unsupported', if she kicks me/us out I'm properly f*cked!
d. She took 9 paid months off on maternity (this is UK), but I think I was given 2 weeks.
So...maybe it might be more correct to say that child-rearing can hit *parents*...not just mothers...
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
While you might as an individual male be impacted by the choice to stay home (which is a whole other kettle of fish) the research shows that women in academia face greater impediments then men.
According to the reports on this study " the story favors men in academe, said Goulden. “Certainly our most important finding has been that family negatively affects women’s, but not men’s, early academic careers. Furthermore, academic women who advance through the faculty ranks have historically paid a considerable price for doing so, in the form of much lower rates of family formation, fertility, and higher rates of family dissolution.” For men, however, the pattern has been either neutral or even net-positive.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
While you might as an individual male be impacted by the choice to stay home (which is a whole other kettle of fish) the research shows that women in academia face greater impediments then men.
According to the reports on this study " the story favors men in academe, said Goulden. “Certainly our most important finding has been that family negatively affects women’s, but not men’s, early academic careers. Furthermore, academic women who advance through the faculty ranks have historically paid a considerable price for doing so, in the form of much lower rates of family formation, fertility, and higher rates of family dissolution.” For men, however, the pattern has been either neutral or even net-positive.
That reference you linked to doesn't mention whether that disparity is equally visible in respect of men that have made the career break that is still the normal expectation for women. I think Mark's point was that it is surely this latter factor that is the cause - if men take the break the results may look similar for them too.
It's possible the work cited looks at this but I can't see it in the summary.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
I think the rise of stay at home fathers is a great thing but it is still relatively rare, so maybe if the trend continues attitudes will adjust and biases become lessened but that's not where we are currently. There is still a presumption when looking at candidates that are women of child bearing age or mothers that it is they who will be the one who sacrifices and it makes employers wary. And most households surveys show that women are still disproportionately saddled with household and child rearing chores. There have also been numerous studies where identical resumes are sent to prospective employers, one with a male name and one with a woman's name, and the women consistently get fewer responses on the exact same resume. Women are penalized just for assumptions based on the fact of being female and not because of a particular choice they have made. Until men can gestate and sufficiently lactate there is always an additional burden on women in family forming that is undeniable and discrimination against pregnant women is not a thing of the past. So while I respect that his individual choice has consequences for him, (and said as much) it has little to do at this point with the larger and well documented issues around discrimination in the US that I was referencing.
[ 08. November 2013, 23:07: Message edited by: art dunce ]
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I was a LEM for many years and old people abandoned by their children were more unhappy than those who were always childless.
Or maybe they just had their unhappiness in a more intense burst at the moment of abandonment rather than stretched out throughout their lives.
I would expect a big difference between those who chose not to have children and those who were unable to have children.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
I have never wanted children, never, not from a very young age. I'm interested in the idea of pressure to have children, I'm not quite sure what it means.
Certainly, I can't believe that anyone would take any notice of silly magazine or newspaper articles. I suppose there were some assumptions by some family members but I don't really recall much being said to me. Macarius & I did consider family feelings but at the end of the day, ours were more important.
A number of my contemporaries (I'm in my mid-late fifties) felt the same.
So what is this pressure exactly? Whence cometh it? Am I naive?
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I have never wanted children, never, not from a very young age. I'm interested in the idea of pressure to have children, I'm not quite sure what it means.
Certainly, I can't believe that anyone would take any notice of silly magazine or newspaper articles. I suppose there were some assumptions by some family members but I don't really recall much being said to me. Macarius & I did consider family feelings but at the end of the day, ours were more important.
A number of my contemporaries (I'm in my mid-late fifties) felt the same.
So what is this pressure exactly? Whence cometh it? Am I naive?
M.
With the best will in the world, I think perhaps you are being a bit naive. I posted about 'cultural pressure', which is quite a different thing from direct pressure being brought to bear upon one from, say, family members. It is a lot more of an undercurrent which runs through the social discourse, which most people (myself included) sort of absorb without noticing - and therefore without critiquing.
As to taking notice of silly magazine articles, again, the effect is more subtle than my viewing a magazine cover and saying 'Why look, Natalie Portman is having a baby. Perhaps I should have one too!' Rather, it is that the sheer volume of these articles, and the absence of articles about anything much else*, reinforce in the collective mind that a.) Women's primary interests are babies and family - and reading about them, and b.) That the achievements in other areas of the women who feature in these articles - world-class sportswomen, musicians and singers, actors, businesswomen, all of these are secondary to and ultimately less rewarding than the experience of having harboured a foetus for a set number of months.
If you have managed to see through this, maintain your own line, and live your life in the way that seems right to you, rather than mindlessly following the crowd, that is excellent, but at present I believe the 'cultural pressure' to have children still remains, although it is probably better described by art dunce as a presumption or an expectation, rather than a pressure.
In fact, art dunce has done a much better job of summing up the circular effect of these cultural expectations than I have, and in just two sentences:
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
There is still a presumption when looking at candidates that are women of child bearing age or mothers that it is they who will be the one who sacrifices and it makes employers wary. [snip]
Women are penalized just for assumptions based on the fact of being female and not because of a particular choice they have made.
While there continues to be an expectation that women's primary interest is in raising children, and that they will be primarily responsible for raising any children that result from a relationship, the world around them is skewed in such a way as to make this more likely to continue to happen - if women are paid less than a male colleague or have poorer conditions because the employer regards them as more of a risk or as only a temporary prospect, then it is simply good financial sense for women to be the ones to 'take time out' to raise children, should they appear - which further perpetuates the idea that this is what women are really interested in, and further undermines other prospects.
*except speculation on upcoming celebrity divorces, I suppose. They probably run a close second.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
I think the rise of stay at home fathers is a great thing but it is still relatively rare, so maybe if the trend continues attitudes will adjust and biases become lessened but that's not where we are currently. There is still a presumption when looking at candidates that are women of child bearing age or mothers that it is they who will be the one who sacrifices and it makes employers wary. And most households surveys show that women are still disproportionately saddled with household and child rearing chores. There have also been numerous studies where identical resumes are sent to prospective employers, one with a male name and one with a woman's name, and the women consistently get fewer responses on the exact same resume. Women are penalized just for assumptions based on the fact of being female and not because of a particular choice they have made. Until men can gestate and sufficiently lactate there is always an additional burden on women in family forming that is undeniable and discrimination against pregnant women is not a thing of the past. So while I respect that his individual choice has consequences for him, (and said as much) it has little to do at this point with the larger and well documented issues around discrimination in the US that I was referencing.
Oh - I agree with pretty much all of that. Whilst there are probably differences and nuances due to the way things are right now in different countries, the first- and second-order effects are much as you outline in most western countries.
The point I was making is the smaller one, that it's the taking of the time out to do all that which overwhelms the consequences - so much that it is difficult to see beyond it.
My only real point of departure would be that I don't think equality will come with men gestating and lactating (yes, I know there are projects looking at this). Rather, it is more likely to come with the development of ex-vivo gestation, which I have seen reckoned to be about 30 years away (but realistically give it say 50). That will genuinely put women on the same footing as men, i.e. providing one of the two types of gametes. Choices for child-rearing subsequently can then be entirely by choice. I'm sure it will cause quite an upset in some quarters, much as there is a bit of crisis of masculinity at present, but we'll get over it.
Which sort-of brings us full circle to the OP. Effectively, I think the development of these variably fallible forms of contraception are pointing the way forward to a future where sex can be entirely uncoupled from reproduction. I think most people would probably opt for an early sterilization programme, safe in the knowledge that if they did want to raise a family at some point, they could make use of their "deposit account" at the sperm or egg bank.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Breast feeding does not prevent ovulation in all women, although it may make it less frequent. While I was breast feeding I ovulated every forty-five days instead of every twenty-eight.
Moo
years ago I worked for a lady who had eight children. she always said that she had heard that you couldn't get pregnant if you were nursing. she went to say that she proved that wasn't so. LOL
--------------------
My cooking blog: http://inthekitchenwithdon.blogspot.com/
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Originally posted by Anoesis:
quote:
With the best will in the world, I think perhaps you are being a bit naive.
Thank you for your well-thought out response (that sounds sarky, but it's genuine). Personally, I don't think I'm particularly sorted so much as unobservant.
I can't help but think things have gone backwards over the last generation or so. When I was a teenager, in the '70's, I don't think any of us would have given a fig what a celebrity did, apart from the general interest (perhaps I had an unusual group of friends?) and this extended to the overall feeling in society. There were not as many opportunities to get bombarded with messages, of whatever sort, of course.
I find it depressing that everything seems to have become more polarised and gendered over the last 30 or 40 years. Certainly, I have found this comparing dealing with/buying presents for great-nieces and nephews now with doing the same for nieces and nephews 30 years ago.
Having said all that, I was in a meeting last week with the owner/MD of a small engineering manufacturing company who was complaining of the difficulties caused by the fact that his men (and they are nearly all men) on the shopfloor now take time off to look after their children when they are ill, rather than their wives doing so. So perhaps it's not all bad.
I'm sorry, this is rather off-topic.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
.... a future where sex can be entirely uncoupled from reproduction. I think most people would probably opt for an early sterilization programme, safe in the knowledge that if they did want to raise a family at some point, they could make use of their "deposit account" at the sperm or egg bank.
TTM that makes a lot of sense as a futurist vision for the continuation of humankind on planet Earth .
I mean let's face it, sex is something most of us like to enjoy with total free abandonment, without the anxiety of cloning ourselves . Whereas regulating our numbers to a sustainable level is something that requires a rather more sound logic.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Interesting no-one is bothered about STIs (sexually transmitted infections) in this brave new world. And no mention of condoms either, which is pretty much the only contraceptive with any prophylactic effect.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Indeed so CK .
It must be nearly 30 years ago when we were all warned that AIDS would killing million upon million if the we did not dramatically curtail our promiscuity .
During that 30 years I would say that promiscuity has become ever more acceptable, particularly among the previously more reliably monogamous heterosexual groups.
I'm not trying to say whether it's right or wrong , it's just seems to be a fact .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kingsfold
Shipmate
# 1726
|
Posted
quote:
posted by M.
I have never wanted children, never, not from a very young age. I'm interested in the idea of pressure to have children, I'm not quite sure what it means.
In my case the pressure was a from a chap I was seeing, who could not comprehend that a woman might not be interested in having children. He could understand a "not now" but assumed that it must be something all women wanted.
The emotional pressure to conform to this was horrendous. I couldn't be a proper Christian (TM), Christian relationship/marriage was about having children (after all that's what it says in the BCP - for children: love, companionship, mutual support are only secondary), I was unnatural for not wanting children...
I was subjected to a what felt like a constant stream of being told every time a baby cried that it was crying for me, and didn't I want to go & comfort/cuddle/do whatever one does in that scenario (no); trying to persuade me his niece wanted me to change her nappy (b****cks); a baby is crying, doesn't it make you feel broody(no); but you would make a wonderful mother (trust me, I wouldn't)... etc etc. Quite frankly it felt like emotional manipulation at the least, and emotional abuse at the worst.
Reader, I sure as hell broke up with him. And it screwed up how I reacted to and interacted with children and infants for years afterwards. Even to the point of being frightened of what sort of relationship I was going to be able to have with my nephew (who's just over a year old).
As I'm single, there isn't pressure to have kids in that way, but I am still deeply scarred by that pressure.
[ 10. November 2013, 12:53: Message edited by: kingsfold ]
Posts: 4473 | From: land of the wee midgie | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Which sort-of brings us full circle to the OP. Effectively, I think the development of these variably fallible forms of contraception are pointing the way forward to a future where sex can be entirely uncoupled from reproduction. I think most people would probably opt for an early sterilization programme, safe in the knowledge that if they did want to raise a family at some point, they could make use of their "deposit account" at the sperm or egg bank.
I'm old enough to remember (around the mid-1960's) when the pill became readily available. We all thought this would give women total reproductive control and there would never again be a baby born to a poor single mother. Instead the "illegitimacy" rate went from about 5% to almost 50% today. There were lots of reasons for the change, but one thing that seemed to happen was that, in very many cases, well off, well educated women used the pill while, in very many cases, poor, uneducated women didn't.
I think it might prove to be a similar situation in your projected future where having children is delayed, perhaps forever, by many of the smartest couples who are in the best position to raise children. All this results in an imbalance in the population where the intelligence and income level of the average person keeps getting lower.
Sometimes I think the truest most frightening film I've seen recently is the comedy, "Idiocracy."
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Whilst I do think things are heading in the direction outlined in my earlier post, I tried to avoid personal comments, or indeed any comment on consequences. It wasn't intended to be an "I would love to see this happen" type post. But I'm sure the Law of Unexpected Consequences is waiting ready to bite us in the backside, as always.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Interesting no-one is bothered about STIs (sexually transmitted infections) in this brave new world. And no mention of condoms either, which is pretty much the only contraceptive with any prophylactic effect.
How many of us are actively promiscuous or sleeping with someone we suspect of promiscuity?
And now that I've read some more, to rolyn's point, I've read in several places that promiscuity is actually less common now than it was in the 90s.
[ 10. November 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
That's taking a comment about STIs far more personally than it was meant, particularly when the best UK estimate from 2012 was 7-9% of 16-24 year olds with chlamydia and increasing rates of genital herpes, genital warts, HIV and syphilis. Gonorrhoea is not only increasing, but so is anti-biotic resistant gonorrhoea.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
References from the HPA STI report 2012
quote:
Key points
- In 2012, there were approximately 450,000 diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) made in England.
- The impact of STIs remains greatest in young heterosexuals under the age of 25 years and in MSM.
- The most commonly diagnosed STI was chlamydia, with 206,912 diagnoses made in 2012.
- The number of new diagnoses of gonorrhoea increased by 21% overall.<snip>
From the summary of that report, there was an increase in the number of diagnoses by about 5% that might reflect sexual behaviour, but also better detection and recording. But there was no suggestion of people having fewer partners or less unsafe sex. The query was whether the figures show an increase or not.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That's taking a comment about STIs far more personally than it was meant, particularly when the best UK estimate from 2012 was 7-9% of 16-24 year olds with chlamydia and increasing rates of genital herpes, genital warts, HIV and syphilis. Gonorrhoea is not only increasing, but so is anti-biotic resistant gonorrhoea.
My intent wasn't to take things personally, more commenting on how the kinds of people that post here may lean away from people who are promiscuous, being older, religious, etc.
I am keenly aware that this is not true for all of us, but for most shippies I imagine condoms just aren't relevant.
Socially speaking, chlamydia doesn't show symptoms in most people, and as such is frequently ignored. Likewise with gonorrhea. Herpes is easily manageable. Syphilis may be rising, but is still pretty rare, I think. HIV has been around enough that people are aware of it and as Neil Gaiman once wrote (more or less) it's just another weapon in Venus's arsenal, for better and worse. It's also much more manageable now if you have coverage.
Which isn't to say that these things aren't serious, but for children who tend to be short-sighted (and practically for many adults I'd bet) it's not the kind of thing that garners much attention.
Also, the discussion on condoms is so straightforward and (I think) assumed these days that it's common sense. If you're going to sleep around, use a condom. There isn't much else to say.
[ 10. November 2013, 16:48: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I'm not sure that "everyone knows" to use a condom. STIs are not seen as a risk with unprotected sex in the same way that pregnancy is seen as a risk, and that's reflected in the opening post here. STIs are not that rare in young people.
The comments about the "raging horn" equally apply to the use of condoms as it does to other attempts at contraception.
eta - surely we're not only thinking of ourselves in this, surely we think of the way other, particularly young people, possibly our children, possibly our grandchildren, possibly potential partners - are acting in their sex lives?
[ 10. November 2013, 18:50: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
My teens' school sex ed included lurid and revolting photos of infected genitalia. (According to them - I didn't see the photos.) I know they're very aware of STIs.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I intend to tell my kids pretty much what was told me to me, and as a friend said his dad said unto him (more or less):
It's really wiser to refrain from sex unless you're willing to raise a child with your partner. But if you choose not to take that advice, please make sure you [or your partner] use a condom, birth control, etc.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
You also need to tell them that it's not just their partner they need to worry about, but all the people their partner has had intimate contact with, and all those peoples' partners, and ... not just penetrative sex, but foreplay and oral sex too, because those also carry the risk of transmission of STIs - any skin to skin contact. It's all very well being a virgin, but if your partner has slept with one person previously who had 20 partners, there is a definite risk of STIs.
Recommendation is that people should get annual sexual health check ups if they are sexually active, and three monthly if they're changing partners regularly and/or indulging in unprotected sex.
NorthEastQuine - mm - yes, I've taught STIs like that too. Got told I was trying to put them off sex, said no, was hoping they'd have the sense to protect themselves.
[ 10. November 2013, 21:51: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That's taking a comment about STIs far more personally than it was meant, particularly when the best UK estimate from 2012 was 7-9% of 16-24 year olds with chlamydia and increasing rates of genital herpes, genital warts, HIV and syphilis. Gonorrhoea is not only increasing, but so is anti-biotic resistant gonorrhoea.
Which is VERY scary...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
