Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sex is increasingly more hazardous to our health
STLtoday.com ^ | 7-17-03 | Amy White

Posted on 07/17/2003 9:11:40 AM PDT by FairWitness

Edited 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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: promiscuity; sex; std
Half of the women experiencing their first sexual encounter get a disease to remember it by. More than 8,000 teenagers a day get infected. Nearly one in four people over the age of 12 already has a variety of genital herpes, and experts anticipate that 50 percent of white American men will be infected in the future.

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".

1 posted on 07/17/2003 9:11:41 AM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Free Republic. More Bang For The Buck!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

2 posted on 07/17/2003 9:13:24 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
The timing of this article's release along with the one about masturbation decreasing prostate cancer in men is kinda more than circumstance. I'll have to think about this for a while to absorb it all. Be back after surfing porn sites for, uh, research.....
3 posted on 07/17/2003 9:30:50 AM PDT by wasp69 (The time has come.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Half of the women experiencing their first sexual encounter get a disease to remember it by.

That % is a lot higher than I would've thought.

4 posted on 07/17/2003 9:32:50 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
ping
5 posted on 07/17/2003 9:34:12 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
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.

6 posted on 07/17/2003 9:36:31 AM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
:That % is a lot higher than I would've thought."

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.

Michael

7 posted on 07/17/2003 9:45:53 AM PDT by Wright is right! (Have a profitable day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
That % is a lot higher than I would've thought.

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.

8 posted on 07/17/2003 9:46:23 AM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
One CDC report dealt with hetrosexual AIDS transmission- they found that condoms provide 85% protection in M-F enounters. I used this statistic when my school was contemplating condom distribution. I brought up the other STDs too.

I pointed out that 85% reduction still leaves 15%- about one in six, the same odds as Russian Roulette.

Most people view Russian Roulette as being quite unsafe but the school apparently did not, they hand out condoms.

Heck, it's safer than having all the cylinders loaded, I guess.
9 posted on 07/17/2003 9:51:15 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
There is no freedom without responsibility.

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.

10 posted on 07/17/2003 9:53:18 AM PDT by Protagoras (Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Wright is right!
It is probably a lot higher than actual reality.

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.

12 posted on 07/17/2003 10:00:12 AM PDT by FairWitness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Half of the women experiencing their first sexual encounter get a disease to remember it by.

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.

13 posted on 07/17/2003 10:00:22 AM PDT by proust (Hello, Cthulhu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PeteZ
Exactly. There are three types of numbers, lies, damn lies, and statistics.

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.

14 posted on 07/17/2003 10:01:34 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness
Something to ponder.

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?

15 posted on 07/17/2003 10:30:45 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
You're exactly right. This is completely inconsistent. I think the realistic answer, (which I assume is the point you're making), is that it is the liberals who push for letting the gov't interfere with our lives for "common good", "public health", etc. This is done, not for the above reasons, but because "big gov't" is a goal. The other side is that when the "public health" argument stands in the way of the wonderful, tolerant, and diverse idea of homos running around sitting on every pole they can find like its musical chairs, they believe the latter is more important.

In short, promoting moral decadence is a better, faster way of destroying our society than promoting statism.

16 posted on 07/17/2003 10:46:54 AM PDT by BMiles2112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FairWitness; Desdemona; Canticle_of_Deborah; Polycarp
From an article in the Washington Post on Sunday

"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.

17 posted on 07/17/2003 1:56:33 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson