xkcd.com/1096/ "Clinically Studied Ingredient" is offensive

[sam_i_am]

Oh man no one's ever made that joke before, I'll wager! I bet it's not even based on missing the point in a trite and obvious way, and in no way makes anyone using it or some variant look like an utter jackass!

I am offended that the OP is offended, and in a serious way and not in a joking way. If you want to live in a world where everyone has to be careful to make sure that everything they say is not offensive to someone else than you can count me out.

[SecondTalon]

Oh man no one's ever made that joke before, I'll wager! I bet it's not even based on missing the point in a trite and obvious way, and in no way makes anyone using it or some variant look like an utter jackass!

I am offended that the OP is offended, and in a serious way and not in a joking way. If you want to live in a world where everyone has to be careful to make sure that everything they say is not offensive to someone else than you can count me out.

Holy fucking shit, did you miss the last two pages of a (at the time) two page thread?

[sam_i_am]

Oh man no one's ever made that joke before, I'll wager! I bet it's not even based on missing the point in a trite and obvious way, and in no way makes anyone using it or some variant look like an utter jackass!

I am offended that the OP is offended, and in a serious way and not in a joking way. If you want to live in a world where everyone has to be careful to make sure that everything they say is not offensive to someone else than you can count me out.

Holy fucking shit, did you miss the last two pages of a (at the time) two page thread?

What In the last 2 pages makes my post make less sense?

[SecondTalon]

I completely forgot who you were. Nevermind!

[Bakemaster]

DaveInsurgent: I find it very amusing that you asked Belial about his sample size (hi-yooo!) and inquired after data, then spent most of the following paragraph talking about the way in which your position on the matter has been informed by the One (1) person you've ever known to have contracted an STI. Never mind that it's likely you knew many others who, for some unfathomable reason, must have failed to CC you on the email.

[Enuja]

At one point, I had a positive HPV test with a PAP smear. At the time, I was monogamous (although I had been polyamorous before, and am polyamorous now). I don't know who I got the HPV from, and I don't know whether my partner had it or not. I assume he did, and gave it to me, but it's just an assumption. We didn't test for HPV before we started the relationship, and we could have both had HPV when the relationship started. Or maybe it was just me. Or just him. I don't know. Don't really care, either. Most people have had HPV, so I expect that my partners have it.

So I'm a person who has had STIs, but I consider myself quite responsible sexually. I use condoms on penises that go in my vagina, but that doesn't always prevent HPV transmission. I am polyamorus, and I do worry a lot more about giving my partners colds than giving them STIs or getting STIs from them. And I'd never ask someone if they were "clean"; I ask if they have any STIs, or which STIs they know they have, or if they have HIV. "Clean" is too general: I only know that I'm clean for the STIs that I get tested for. The last time I was tested, I was "clean" on every test I got but, I didn't, for example, have my throat tested for HPV. There is no way I'm going to pay for every single STI test that exists, and it's not medically smart to test everybody for everything: it wastes resources.

[Belial]

Oh man no one's ever made that joke before, I'll wager! I bet it's not even based on missing the point in a trite and obvious way, and in no way makes anyone using it or some variant look like an utter jackass!

I am offended that the OP is offended, and in a serious way and not in a joking way. If you want to live in a world where everyone has to be careful to make sure that everything they say is not offensive to someone else than you can count me out.

Holy fucking shit, did you miss the last two pages of a (at the time) two page thread?

What In the last 2 pages makes my post make less sense?

Siiiigh. Apparently today is the day for this.

Mostly what you missed is this post but if you're this far into idiocy you might have trouble parsing the sarcasm.

To put it simply, no one is trying to force anyone to do anything. You don't "have to" be careful. If you say the wrong thing, you're not going to disappear into a secret prison. That's not what this is. This is someone being hurt by something someone else said, and as a response asking that person, one human being to another, not to say things in that hurtful way anymore. Voluntarily. Out of the kindness of their heart. Because presumably they don't want to be a dick. It is a basic, courteous human interaction.

Turning it into a weird battle about how other people want to "control my speech!!!Eleventy!!" is, in that context, a weird and drama-llama-y dodge to avoid the fact that your answer to "could you please act like a decent human being?" is actually "NO I DON'T WANNA YOU CAN'T MAKE ME LALALALALALALALALALA".

Therefore, from now on, everyone who tries to reframe the discussion this way is assumed to be 7.

Note that the forum age restriction is 13.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

There are still some lords of language hidden all over these fora

[Belial]

Jaime, you must be my scourge in this. Seek them out, strike at them in their hiding places, and chase them screaming into the light so that we might laugh at them and tell them they dress funny.

[HungryHobo]

To put it simply, no one is trying to force anyone to do anything. You don't "have to" be careful. If you say the wrong thing, you're not going to disappear into a secret prison. That's not what this is. This is someone being hurt by something someone else said, and as a response asking that person, one human being to another, not to say things in that hurtful way anymore. Voluntarily. Out of the kindness of their heart. Because presumably they don't want to be a dick. It is a basic, courteous human interaction.

yes they are with public shaming. oh hey, not putting any pressure on you or anything but if you don't do what I want then you're a horrible person who obviously hate minority X.

has it occured to you that demanding that existing comics, books, statements or similar be revised/changed/censored may bother some people?

yes censored. it still counts as censorship when you're trying to make the author change things by publicly attempting to make him look like a dick for not giving in to your demands, there's a reason ray bradbury didn't have the censorship coming down from the goverment in his stories but rather up from countless little groups, because that's where almost all the demands for censorship he ever recieved came from. telling him he should re-write his books so as to not offend one group or another and it's the thin end of the wedge which makes calls for censorship socially acceptable, http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/451/451.html

saying "hey in your future work please don't use that term in such a manner because.." is a very different animal from saying "hey, you should re-write this so as to not offend me" even if you don't see it as such.

but if insulting anyone who disagrees with you makes you feel better you can go with that instead. So sure. the only reason anyone could object is because they want to be dicks.you've answered the question Belial with a nice easy answer which doesn't involve thinking.

You know I agree with the OP on a lot of points but the only people who have been bigger cuntbags than the early commenters in this topic who were dismissive and douchebaggy have been the later commenter who've been even more insulting and dismissive while being filled with a sense of smug self satisfaction. There are reasons to object to calls for censorship, even merely pressure for self censorship beyond simply being a dick.

[The Mighty Thesaurus]

Brodude, your options are being a dick and not being a dick. It doesn't matter if you're doing it to rail against censorship or for the simple pleasure of being a dick.

[Belial]

yes censored. it still counts as censorship when you're trying to make the author change things by publicly attempting to make him look like a dick for not giving in to your demands

In that case, how dare you censor their request for censorship? I mean, look at you, trying to publicly shame them into withdrawing their request by calling their censorship censorship you censoring censor of censorship Lalalaorwelllalalalanewspeak.

No, sorry, politely requesting that something offensive be changed isn't a nefarious attempt at censorship. Petitioning the government to silence him would be censorship. Requesting that he change it voluntarily is just...well, in this case, probably pretty unproductive. Randy doesn't read the forums. But in other cases, it's a request. And if the social pressure of making a request publicly is so deleterious that it counts as oppressive censorship, then I think you lose the ability to argue that speech and social stigma can't possibly have been harmful to the group making the request.

It either works that way, or it doesn't.

[HungryHobo]

I mean, look at you, trying to publicly shame them into withdrawing their request

That would be a killer comeback if I'd at any point asked the OP to remove/delete/edit their request or comments.

then I think you lose the ability to argue that speech and social stigma can't possibly have been harmful to the group making the request.

I also never argued this. Stop listening to the voices in your head.
I said I agreed with the OP.

but in that vein while I believe that a lot of disneys old films were horribly racist I also think that it's wrong to call for them to be cut, changed and edited to remove the objectionable parts after the fact. Censorship is censorship no matter it's source whether it's the government, a crowd of fundamentalists or anyone else.

We wouldn't insist that chuch groups attempts to get the publisher to withdraw/change "And Tango Makes Three" or various groups attempts to have the language in To Kill A MockingBird changed aren't censorship just because the government isn't involved.

it also isn't a matter of whether your cause is just or not.

[Bakemaster]

yes they are with public shaming. oh hey, not putting any pressure on you or anything but if you don't do what I want then you're a horrible person who obviously hate minority X.

has it occured to you that demanding that existing comics, books, statements or similar be revised/changed/censored may bother some people?

Cast a wide net, much? I'm sure it bothered Todd Akin very much when Practically The Entire Country recently called for him to revise his offensive statements. OH NO! CENSORSHIP!

Give me a break. You have a first world problem and you think you're being oppressed. You forget that in the works you so eagerly cite, threats are backed up with violence. Not force as in "they yelled at me really really loud!" but force as in imprisonment and torture. Characters in Fahrenheit 451 are not allowed to choose to keep their books. The censorship does not lie in the request, or even in the emphatic demand; it lies in the enforcement, in the removal of choice. By pressuring you en masse we in no way remove your ability to choose to be contrary and retain your own view. Nor would I recommend expending too much effort bemoaning how outnumbered you are—fun has already been made of how many times your views were expressed by others before you started posting.

When you say, X is Y; when people respond, that's wrong and you're Z, take it back; when you refuse, and are not unreasonably molested as a result, there is no censorship. We can crown you with the asshat and you may launch cuntbag mortars back at us until the cows come home, both of us doing so from the safety of our respective computers or other devices, and that's the extent of it. Yes, we are pressuring you. We hope to change your mind.

Or we did at some point, anyway.

[HungryHobo]

Cast a wide net, much? I'm sure it bothered Todd Akin very much when Practically The Entire Country recently called for him to revise his offensive statements. OH NO! CENSORSHIP!

people were more calling for him to go jump off a bridge. not un-say the things he said because that would be pointless. nobody was insisting that the videos of his statements should be edited to make them more acceptable, quite the opposite.

Give me a break. You have a first world problem and you think you're being oppressed.

You seem to be arguing with someone who isn't here. take those pills you were given so that the imaginary people you're talking with go away because at no point have I claimed to be opressed. Did you actually read bradburys piece on the subject?

[setzer777]

Well, pretty much only the OP actually asked Randall to change anything. I haven't seen anyone in this thread try to make Randall feel like a dick.

But aside from that, I don't understand why people have such hard time just happily holding onto a view that a minority of people disagree with. Most people aren't going to care if you use the word "clean" in your fictional work - it's common usage. Who cares if some people think you're a dick for doing it? If you consider their criticisms and come to the conclusion that they are wrong, you can just ignore their rage.

[SecondTalon]

I mean, look at you, trying to publicly shame them into withdrawing their request

That would be a killer comeback if I'd at any point asked the OP to remove/delete/edit their request or comments.

Here, lemme show you something

has it occured to you that demanding that existing comics, books, statements or similar be revised/changed/censored may bother some people?

yes censored. it still counts as censorship when you're trying to make the author change things by publicly attempting to make him look like a dick for not giving in to your demands, there's a reason ray bradbury didn't have the censorship coming down from the goverment in his stories but rather up from

See, when you brought up that bolded bit, your conversation moved from "We're discussing this particular instance, right here, and not worrying about other instances at all" to "Let's just discuss the hypothetical situation as a whole, using this one particular instance about Dirty/Clean as a jumping off point"

Because that's how discussions and arguments and so on work. You have a base to move on from to discuss the wider issue at hand, in this case changing language to not offend some and whether or not it's censorship and should be stopped or just not being a dick and should be done.

So Belial then addressed it from the working hypothetical, in which there is %WORK% with %ELEMENT% that is shown in such a way to cause offense to %GROUP% who happen to be a marginalized group in society.

Whether or not it's a killer comeback is.. irrelevant.

Make up your damned mind about what you're wanting to discuss. Are you wanting to lock in to this one instance? Then don't bring up books, movies, TV, or even other comics. Keep it to this comic or, at most, Randall's library of comics. Are you wanting to discuss the behavior and how it should be handled overall? Then don't try to be coy or clever and use the OP as a shield to deflect criticism of your points by redirecting the discussion back to the OP, or dismiss a comment because it hasn't shown up specifically addressing the OP.

You can't have it both ways.

[DaveInsurgent]

At one point, I had a positive HPV test with a PAP smear. At the time, I was monogamous (although I had been polyamorous before, and am polyamorous now). I don't know who I got the HPV from, and I don't know whether my partner had it or not. I assume he did, and gave it to me, but it's just an assumption. We didn't test for HPV before we started the relationship, and we could have both had HPV when the relationship started. Or maybe it was just me. Or just him. I don't know. Don't really care, either. Most people have had HPV, so I expect that my partners have it.

So I'm a person who has had STIs, but I consider myself quite responsible sexually. I use condoms on penises that go in the volcano, but that doesn't always prevent HPV transmission. I am polyamorus, and I do worry a lot more about giving my partners colds than giving them STIs or getting STIs from them. And I'd never ask someone if they were "clean"; I ask if they have any STIs, or which STIs they know they have, or if they have HIV. "Clean" is too general: I only know that I'm clean for the STIs that I get tested for. The last time I was tested, I was "clean" on every test I got but, I didn't, for example, have my throat tested for HPV. There is no way I'm going to pay for every single STI test that exists, and it's not medically smart to test everybody for everything: it wastes resources.

How much do the tests cost - I mean, it's like ~2 years of not being able to have sex. How much is/was that worth to you?

"Clean" is too general: I only know that I'm clean for the STIs that I get tested for

Yeah, but when someone asks if you're clean, they're implicitly asking if you've been tested for everything since your last encounter.

[sam_i_am]

To put it simply, no one is trying to force anyone to do anything. You don't "have to" be careful. If you say the wrong thing, you're not going to disappear into a secret prison. That's not what this is. This is someone being hurt by something someone else said, and as a response asking that person, one human being to another, not to say things in that hurtful way anymore. Voluntarily. Out of the kindness of their heart. Because presumably they don't want to be a dick. It is a basic, courteous human interaction.

I shall remember this post for future reference

[Belial]

Oh I see where you're going.

Note: when it comes to forum policy, yeah, we might actually censor you. That *still* isn't what's happening when someone calls you a dick, but yes, it might happen. And some of the shit you say will get you banned. That is because this is not the real world, it is my Duchy of Shrieking Ephemera and Sublime Nightmares (Subnote: I think I just named my next house), and you are all my lost and benighted subjects, doomed to wander this vale of shadows and gauzy mirages until the end of your days. As such, the rules are different here.

That said, if you'd like to limit the scope of the discussion to "Places Over Which Belial Reigns as a Grim and Terrible God Emperor, Feared (and Secretly Desired) By All" we can do that, but it will be a very different discussion. And you'll need to get me a beer. The beer is not optional.

[SecondTalon]

Wooo! Gauzy mirages!

[Belial]

Yeah, I gotta admit that I'm really enamored of the word "gauzy" lately, and was hunting for an excuse to slip it in there somewhere.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh man no one's ever made that joke before, I'll wager! I bet it's not even based on missing the point in a trite and obvious way, and in no way makes anyone using it or some variant look like an utter jackass!

I am offended that the OP is offended, and in a serious way and not in a joking way. If you want to live in a world where everyone has to be careful to make sure that everything they say is not offensive to someone else than you can count me out.

Holy fucking shit, did you miss the last two pages of a (at the time) two page thread?

What In the last 2 pages makes my post make less sense?

Nothing. You are entirely correct. The OP took something out of context, then added his own assumptions to arrive at something "offensive".

There's a point at which you're screaming "I WANT TO BE A VICTIM". This is pretty far past the point of reasonableness for taking offense at something. I can definitely understand why the apparent unreasonableness would be offensive.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

See, when you brought up that bolded bit, your conversation moved from "We're discussing this particular instance, right here, and not worrying about other instances at all" to "Let's just discuss the hypothetical situation as a whole, using this one particular instance about Dirty/Clean as a jumping off point"

To be, somehow, fair to HungryHobo here, I think the claim he's making is that asking someone to go back and edit something is bad in a way that just asking them to not say it is. In that case, no, he's not contradicting himself by asking people not to say certain things, which is why he pointed out that he hasn't asked anyone to do what he's said people shouldn't be asked to do (that is, retroactive censorship).

The OP took something out of context

Tell me, how does the context conflict with the OP's interpretation?

[Enuja]

At one point, I had a positive HPV test with a PAP smear. At the time, I was monogamous (although I had been polyamorous before, and am polyamorous now). I don't know who I got the HPV from, and I don't know whether my partner had it or not. I assume he did, and gave it to me, but it's just an assumption. We didn't test for HPV before we started the relationship, and we could have both had HPV when the relationship started. Or maybe it was just me. Or just him. I don't know. Don't really care, either. Most people have had HPV, so I expect that my partners have it.

So I'm a person who has had STIs, but I consider myself quite responsible sexually. I use condoms on penises that go in the volcano, but that doesn't always prevent HPV transmission. I am polyamorus, and I do worry a lot more about giving my partners colds than giving them STIs or getting STIs from them. And I'd never ask someone if they were "clean"; I ask if they have any STIs, or which STIs they know they have, or if they have HIV. "Clean" is too general: I only know that I'm clean for the STIs that I get tested for. The last time I was tested, I was "clean" on every test I got but, I didn't, for example, have my throat tested for HPV. There is no way I'm going to pay for every single STI test that exists, and it's not medically smart to test everybody for everything: it wastes resources.

How much do the tests cost - I mean, it's like ~2 years of not being able to have sex. How much is/was that worth to you?

"Clean" is too general: I only know that I'm clean for the STIs that I get tested for

Yeah, but when someone asks if you're clean, they're implicitly asking if you've been tested for everything since your last encounter.

What results in "2 years of not being able to have sex"? I have no idea what you're talking about. And I don't know why you bolded parts of what I said. Maybe because you think I'm sexually irresponsible, because I've tested positive for HPV? 26% of women ages 14-59 have HPV at any given time. Condoms don't prevent its spread. I think I'm sexually responsible, and have a realistic grasp of the risks of sex. Being sexually responsible doesn't mean getting rid of all of the risks of sex: responsible doesn't mean living in a bubble, it means learning about and making good choices about risk.

Testing is not magic: I'm not worried just about how much money I personally spend on STI testing, I'm worried about effective uses of resources in our society as a whole and in the medical industry in particular. When testing for something doesn't improve people's health outcomes, and doesn't prevent transmission, it's a bad idea to pour lots of money into it instead of into things that actually improve health outcomes.

The only people I know of who have been tested for every STI that the medical industry has commercial tests for have worked in pornography. Have you been tested for every possible STI? Do you know anyone who has? That's really not what people mean when they ask if you are "clean". Maybe you have been tested for everything, and ask that question, but unless you can point to people who have actually been tested for everything and ask other people if they are "clean," I don't believe you when you say that's what most people mean.

[setzer777]

What results in "2 years of not being able to have sex"? I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think he's saying that if you contract HPV (which I believe has recently been found to sometimes clear our of your system in about 2 years), you either need to refrain from sex entirely (since barrier methods don't consistently prevent its spread), or you need to inform every partner that you have it, which he assumes will lead to them turning down sex with you.

[DaveInsurgent]

Precisely, setzer777. In addition to that assumption, would you really want to have sex with someone who wanted to continue after your disclosure? It's kind of a non-starter, at least to me an I suspect anyone who has a reasonable aversion to STIs.

Nevermind that the fact that by trying to have sex while knowingly infected with a high-risk but temporary STI, you're one of the "dirty" people we're all afraid to offend.

Being sexually responsible doesn't mean getting rid of all of the risks of sex: responsible doesn't mean living in a bubble, it means learning about and making good choices about risk.

"I don't care" and "I didn't get tested" don't sound like good choices about risk. The mere act of having sex introduces risk, of course I understand that. But you're in an increased risk lifestyle by being polyamorous, and so I propose that you should carry the burder of increased risk-reduction by virtue of increased testing. I don't get tested for STIs because I am in a monogamous and long-term relationship, and while that still, as you say, represents a risk because it depends on someone else (whom I trust, but nevertheless, that is statistically insignificant if not irrelevant), it represents a small risk, especially when the aquisition of the STI would mean much less in terms of devastating news, compared to the infidelity or breach of trust in the relationship/family unit.

I'm worried about effective uses of resources in our society as a whole

What (severely) limited-supply resources does an HPV test use up that makes this statement any more than just utter bullshit? Not to mention, if you happened to have been polyamorous at the time, and it spread, there's arguably a larger number of people who will end up having to be tested or will elect to be tested. I can't believe I'm typing this, but: You're not doing society any favours by ignoring whether or not you're spreading disease. Does that makes sense to you?

I can make the same ridiculous argument about not washing my hands after taking a dump, because I'm careful not to put my fingers in my mouth, and I don't want to "waste resources". No, I fucking wash my hands.

but unless you can point to people who have actually been tested for everything and ask other people if they are "clean," I don't believe you when you say that's what most people mean.

I'll concede that I'm wrong to purport that my definition of "are you clean" is what everyone means (have you had every single test run on you since your last partner), but lets be realistic: Anyone who is asking you "Are you clean?" wants to know, with as much certainty as possible, do you have any STI, at all - to the best of your knowledge. Not just "the bad ones". Not "not-HPV because that goes away after 2 years but I don't even know that yet I don't understand why having it would mean I'd have to stop having sex despite the fact I've repeatedly stated that it's transmission is not easily preventable" ... and to say it again, I can't forsee any real situtation where you'd be all like "hey, I have this thing that you'll probably get", and anyone else would be like "alright! just what I've always wanted, this is totally worth it instead of going home and rubbing one out." -- unless you both have it.. but then there's gotta be some kind of matchmaking service for that so that you don't have to do the whole Q&A bit.

So, as someone who is fucking several people, who are themselves possibly fucking several people, and therefore by extension fucking lots of people, who doesn't seem to see a "sex-stopping" problem with having a hard-to-prevent STI... no, you're not a sexually responsible person. You're not an outright malicious bastard, but you're not doing all you could do to help prevent the transmission of infections, under the guise of some retarded "resource saving" mantra.

[Ashlah]

Precisely, setzer777. In addition to that assumption, would you really want to have sex with someone who wanted to continue after your disclosure? It's kind of a non-starter, at least to me an I suspect anyone who has a reasonable aversion to STIs.

Wait, wait, wait. Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that someone who has STIs, wants to have sex with a person, discloses their status to said person, finds out said person is okay with it and also wants to have sex, should then turn them down due to the fact that they are willing to have sex with someone with an STI? What? Why? Because it's so horribly disgusting that no one in their right mind should ever have sex with anyone with an STI? Are you kidding? I honestly think you need to do some additional research about STIs, particularly HPV. Because you're coming across as kind of a dick.

[DaveInsurgent]

Precisely, setzer777. In addition to that assumption, would you really want to have sex with someone who wanted to continue after your disclosure? It's kind of a non-starter, at least to me an I suspect anyone who has a reasonable aversion to STIs.

Wait, wait, wait. Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that someone who has STIs, wants to have sex with a person, discloses their status to said person, finds out said person is okay with it and also wants to have sex, should then turn them down due to the fact that they are willing to have sex with someone with an STI? What? Why? Because it's so horribly disgusting that no one in their right mind should ever have sex with anyone with an STI? Are you kidding? I honestly think you need to do some additional research about STIs, particularly HPV. Because you're coming across as kind of a dick.

I was making the point that it seems like a non-starter.. I can't forsee ever being in a situation where I'd have to tell someone I had an STI, because I wouldn't be attempting to have sex while I was infected. Why would you want to have sex with someone who wasn't bothered by the fact you're currently carrying an infection? What other concessions have they made? It just seems entirely too complicated, compared to .. no hanky panky while infected. If it's a permanent thing, then that itself is a separate issue to deal with, because now you've living life with it and the subset of the population willing to have sex with you has been reduced. I guess I've always assumed that if I became infected, I'd have sex with other infected people.

Because it's so horribly disgusting that no one in their right mind should ever have sex with anyone with an STI?

A temporary one, for sure. Seems like a totally unnecessary risk. A permanent one? That depends on a lot of things. Personally? No. Never. I would never have sex with anyone with an STI. Ever.

Are you kidding?

No. I'm not actually saying they're "digusting" (as people), but I find their situation to be completely unattractive. I'm well within reason to feel that way, and what I'm really trying to understand is how many people actually think "Yes, I totally want to have sex with you while you're infected" when they aren't themselves infected. I just don't see any way to arrive at such a conclusion. Nobody is so unique or special that I'd have to make that choice. Find someone else.

So yes, I may very much be a dick. Without any STIs.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Why would you want to have sex with someone who wasn't bothered by the fact you're currently carrying an infection?

Uhh, because sex is fun?

[setzer777]

There's also the fact that a huge proportion of the population will have HPV at some point, and the vast majority are asymptomatic.

[DaveInsurgent]

That's irrelevant to my decision because it is built in to the base risk of having any kind of sex (and the "at some point" part is just completely useless information)

Intentionally participating with someone who is knowingly infected only increases that risk, so I choose not to. If someone at work who is really feeling unwell comes over and asks to have a sip of your drink, would you oblige?

How about something not disease related: There's an inherent risk of being involved in an automobile accident simply by being in a car. I still choose not to get in a car with a drunk person behind the wheel. You can't know if you're going to pass a drunk driver (of another vehicle) on the way home, but you can certainly improve your odds by not voluntarily increasing the risk. And from the "sex feels good" standpoint... walking home might kinda suck, especially if it is raining. Driving is "comfortable" (feels good) but not as safe in that case. I'm not saying don't have sex - I'm specifically saying... instead of having sex with someone that is infected, why not find someone else, who isn't? (Or at least, isn't guaranteed to be).

I can appreciate that I've come off crass, having re-read what I've typed after stepping away. But I really don't understand, at all, how one could get in this situation because I wouldn't make/take advances from someone who was infected... so unless that person was bringing it up just as we're about to have a go... and now that I think of that, that's actually pretty irresponsible, because Big Mega Horny isn't the best decision making time.

[natraj]

I can appreciate that I've come off crass, having re-read what I've typed after stepping away. But I really don't understand, at all, how one could get in this situation because I wouldn't make/take advances from someone who was infected... so unless that person was bringing it up just as we're about to have a go... and now that I think of that, that's actually pretty irresponsible, because Big Mega Horny isn't the best decision making time.

and that is a decision that is perfectly valid for you to make, but it certainly does not make other people irresponsible if they elect to make other decisions. i am also sti free and have always been sti free; i have been involved in sex work for years so i get tested quite regularly for more things than most people i know. one of my former frequent partners (not work related) was hiv positive; i knew this when i was dating him (... during which period we never had sex, actually.) and i knew this years later when we decided to start sleeping together. having an sti (even a Big Scary Incurable one) was certainly a very important thing we discussed before ever sleeping together, but we took precautions to always be safer and i am not sure why the fact that i was still interested in him with knowing his status means i am somehow an unfit sex partner.

are you just saying all people with stis should be considered unfit for anyone else to be with ever? that is pretty appalling, dude. it is one thing to make up your mind for yourself and another thing entirely to make sweeping generalizations about the decisions everyone else makes about their bodies.

[Bakemaster]

You seem to be arguing with someone who isn't here. take those pills you were given so that the imaginary people you're talking with go away because at no point have I claimed to be opressed. Did you actually read bradburys piece on the subject?

My, you're a feisty one. I guess I'll take my pills as soon as you admit that it's not that everyone around you has shit reading comprehension, it's that you're shit at communicating.

I skimmed the Bradbury essay; I read it years ago. I'm a big fan of his fiction (through the 70s, at least) but I don't share his fervor on this particular topic. Why? Are you really still talking specifically about the OP?

[setzer777]

That's irrelevant to my decision because it is built in to the base risk of having any kind of sex (and the "at some point" part is just completely useless information).

What? I wasn't saying anything about your decision. I was specifically referring to this quote:

How much do the tests cost - I mean, it's like ~2 years of not being able to have sex. How much is/was that worth to you?

Your suggestion that she'd have to go 2 years without sex is nonsensical. My point is that HPV is so common that it's not likely to cause people to rule you out as a sex partner (since there's a very good chance they already have it too and are just asymptomatic). Hell, I don't think it would be that big a deal if Enuja had tested positive and not disclosed to her future partners (assuming they didn't ask).

[DaveInsurgent]

Then, quite frankly, you're a bit of a sociopath. "They didn't ask so I don't tell" is absolutely bat-shit insane, there is no sugar coating that one. A large portion of the population will _have had it at one time_ - that's not the same thing as "chances are they have it". Seriously, get that?

My sugggestion that she go up to 2 years without sex is based on the fact that she will continue to negatively affect public health during that period, and for someone who doesn't want to get tested because it "wastes resources" to continue to do so is bullshit.

I don't think there's something wrong with you for sleeping with someone who is infected. I don't understand why you would - there's no combination of words you could provide that would make me go "Oh! Yes! Now I would!" - but that doesn't mean you're in the wrong. You must admit that by having sex with someone that is infected is an obvious increase in risk.I don't think that makes you irresponsible right then and there. The thorough testing you've gone through is the epitome of responsible!

Another important part of responsibility is making sure the person understands what they're getting in to - e.g. They may think a condom is full protection. Is it? If not, you had better lay out the facts. Better for them to know, but that's no excuse if you are a carrier.

The irresponsible part is not being tested. The hugely irresponsible, possibly criminal, perhaps someone-hurts-your-legs-with-a-baseball-bat part is not telling someone if you're infected if you know. That's fucking crazy. There's a hugely implicit "you'd have told me if there's anything I'd need to know?" happening when you hook up.

[setzer777]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong - tests for HPV are typically only conducted in instances of abnormal pap smears. If you test positive for HPV and then later get a clean pap smear, doctors will usually only test for HPV again if you get abnormal cells again.

[Bakemaster]

I can't assess the accuracy of that statement but I also don't see how it's relevant to whether you inform potential partners of your positive test before having sex with them. You seem to be operating under the assumption that because HPV is relatively common, it's no big deal? And if that's your personal opinion, then fine; feel free to behave appropriately with regard to your own health.

I don't think boogers are that big a deal, so I don't freak out if I sneeze and get a booger on my hand. That doesn't mean I leave it there for other people to have to deal with when I give out high-fives or handshakes.

I'm always giving out high-fives. The world is full of accomplishments.

[setzer777]

I'm not talking about what I would do (assuming a test existed for men) - I was just saying that I don't think Enuja's actions are irresponsible like Dave is saying they are. My point was that I don't think it would be that huge of a deal of she didn't disclose test results*, and therefore I definitely don't think it's irresponsible for her to not test for HPV as often as she possibly could.

*Assuming that she's had clean pap smears since then and I'm correct about how tests work.

[eran_rathan]

A temporary one, for sure. Seems like a totally unnecessary risk. A permanent one? That depends on a lot of things. Personally? No. Never. I would never have sex with anyone with an STI. Ever.

Considering that nearly 60% of the population of the US (and between 65% and 90% worldwide) are infected with herpes, you probably have. Hells, I've been strictly monogamous my entire life (i.e., only one sexual partner ever), and I've got it.