Skip to comments.Sex is increasingly more hazardous to our health
Posted on 07/17/2003 9:11:40 AM PDT by FairWitnessEdited on 05/11/2004 5:34:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court reminded America that sex is private. In fact, there is very little privacy in our sexually saturated culture. From cybersex in chat rooms to discussion of sexual positions on HBO's "Sex and the City," there is little mystique left.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
There is no freedom without responsibility. In the words of an old country music song, "Somethin's got a hold on me, it's cheap but it ain't free".
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
That % is a lot higher than I would've thought.
My reaction too. As the father of two not-yet-married, twenty-something kids (one male and one female) I worry a lot.
It is probably a lot higher than actual reality. The fact that the author is a political speech writer tells me that there is likely to be a bit of scare-mongering in her verbiage.
That is what I was thinking. But they are probably including STDs that most people don't think of as STDs. There are a quite a number of essentially innocuous viruses that can be sexually transmitted that you'll never know you have. Some, like CMV and similar, they only really know about because they have to screen the blood supply for it when selecting blood for people with damaged immune systems (like AIDS patients), but something like 80+% of the population has it.
The number of sexually transmitted viruses and such are much higher than the number that actually have significant medical consequences or any symptoms. Many of the viruses are fairly benign and just come along for the ride. I generally avoid viruses as a rule (who doesn't?), but there are many sexually transmitted ones that are symptomless that a majority of the population carries.
Well said. And it is refreshing (in a wierd sort of way) to see the whole problem of sexual licence addressed instead of just pretending that homosexuals cause all the problems.
As stated in the article: They (the statistics) come from studies and reviews conducted by or for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and published in periodicals such as the New England Journal of Medicine. And since many of those infected are asymptomatic and undiagnosed, the statistics are inadequate.
That % is a lot higher than I would've thought.
When they start throwing around large number like that without a great deal of solid info to back it up I get suspcious. If that really were the case, we'd hear about it from more than some political speech writer. Politicans would break there legs running to give huge amounts of money and face time.
"In any case, many STDs are transmitted skin to skin, which dodges condoms anyway."
Oh really? So that means I can shake someone's hand and get many STDs eh? It's just that easy. STDs are a problem, but outrageous fear mongering and mythmaking will only make things worse.
This article reminds me of my college - the feminists on campus used to tout that 1 in 4 women on campus were sexually assaulted every year.
It was a 4 year school. Do the math.
There are many laws at all levels of government, local, state, and federal, prohibiting, limiting, or requiring safety equipment for human activity.
For example, no smoking in New York, seat belt laws in Illinois, motorcycle helmet laws in many states, prohibition of "bear(ing) arms," fast food companies and gun manufacturers being sued for producing harmful products, are justified by the "compelling state interest of public safety and controll of public money spent on health care."
Especially in the male homosexual community, where STD's and AIDS are rampant as well as a mutant staph infection is rampant as well, why are their not laws protecting the "public health" and the "compelling state interest" of controlling medical costs from such sexual behavior?
It kind of stands the notion of "public safety" and "compelling state interest" as the justification for denying, disparaging and abridging liberty on its head, n'est pas?
In short, promoting moral decadence is a better, faster way of destroying our society than promoting statism.
"I was trying to give sex a good name," Hefner told the Television Critics Association summer gathering last week. "Because sex had always been both legally and socially and politically outside the boundaries of what was acceptable in society."
"I tried to create a magazine and a lifestyle around it that incorporated sex as a natural, normal part of life, including recreational sex," he said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.