Hacker News Reader

Comment by soneca | Hacker News Reader

I disagree. I (annedoctally) heard several times stories about how today's youth (~20yo) doing more unprotected sex than my generation (~35yo) only because HIV "does not kill anymore".

If AIDS is actually curable, I would bet that all other STD would explode in the short term

View on HN

There is also a sort-of vaccine for HIV called PrEP or something like that. I'm not sure how you get it but I've seen mention of people using it prophylactically (which is what its designed for). And really without HIV, there isn't too much to be afraid of. HPV has a vaccine for many of the dangerous strains, and the other strains infect the vast majority of the populace anyway so even calling them a 'disease' is arguable. Same with herpes. It's for life, but almost everyone has it. Gonorrhea, chlamydia, etc, are easily treatable except for the antibiotic resistant forms which are (thankfully) very isolated in their spread.

Aiming for 'less sexual activity' is a very bad goal. Abstinence is harmful. The tremendous health benefits of sexual activity are myriad. The amount of research backing up the idea that modern society is dangerously sexless is huge. One of my favorites was a study of ALL men, across all ages, socioeconomic groups, everything, of an entire town I believe somewhere in northern Scotland (maybe Ireland?)... those who had the most frequent orgasms had a 50% lower chance of having died of any cause over the 15 year period of their study. They also had very significantly reduced incidence of heart disease, cancer, and other health problems. But, of course, such things get reported as 'health benefits of sex' and not 'health dangers of abstinence' because they assume people are abstinent by default which is ludicrous. We'll know if public sentiment is changing when the headlines change.

> One of my favorites was a study of ALL men, across all ages, socioeconomic groups, everything, of an entire town I believe somewhere in northern Scotland (maybe Ireland?)... those who had the most frequent orgasms had a 50% lower chance of having died of any cause over the 15 year period of their study. They also had very significantly reduced incidence of heart disease, cancer, and other health problems. But, of course, such things get reported as 'health benefits of sex' and not 'health dangers of abstinence' because they assume people are abstinent by default which is ludicrous. We'll know if public sentiment is changing when the headlines change.

There seems to be a causality, but to me it is not obvious, what its direction is. The most healthy men, are probably also the most attractive.

Given the variety and abundance of studies, along with my reading on evolutionary biology, human biological history, and sexuality in general, I think it's a simple matter of 'we are built to be profoundly sexual creatures.' Just look at the facts of orgasm and I personally think it becomes clear that it has to be a critical bodily function. If you refuse to do anything to elicit one intentionally, your body will eventually take over and force one to occur in your sleep. That is not something the body does generally with other things except critical ones. There is certainly an argument that perhaps the purpose is to improve sperm quality in males, but females have nocturnal orgasms as well (though the mess after puberty makes it quite a bit easier for males to recognize it has happened).

We could have evolved to have a 'mating season' as almost all animals have. We could have evolved for females to give visible indication of fertility. We could have saved "wasting" the positively monumental amount of energy we pour into pursuing sex. We could have evolved so that sex was not even pleasurable but driven by instinct. We didn't have to evolve women going through menopause (and living a substantial amount of time afterward). Almost every single facet of human sexuality, if viewed through the lens of "sex is for reproduction", looks nonsensical if not evolutionarily suicidal. But through the lens of "sex is primarily for pleasure and social bonding," every bit of it makes sense. It explains why we stuck together in groups, the only thing that let weak, slow, stupid chimps without fangs, claws, venom, natural armor, or other similar natural advantages (except maybe endurance) survive long enough to have our social environment provide pressure for brain development and development of speech. We stuck together to preserve access to sexual partners, because it was pleasurable, and it made us the most powerful species on the planet. It makes sense that those who 'needed' it more were the ones to pass on their genes the most often.

PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) is Truvada, which is part of the anti-retroviral regimen given to many HIV(+) patients. The idea is that any virions that enter your body are killed before they have a chance to set up shop.

It is a reasonably simple, safe, and effective drug, so it really should be available from any PCP. However, some community physicians do not prescribe it for one reason or another. HIV/STD clinics are almost always happy to see HIV(-) patients who are interested in PrEP.

Isn't there a lot of talk about how today's youth is much less likely to date/engage in sexual activity?

So what you're saying is, they don't always have sex, but when they do it's unprotected? That sounds pretty normal to me.

I think this is the time we should start using some data in this discussion, but my view is that people in their twenties are doing much more sex today. Due to tech (eg Tinder) and less stigma for sexually active women.

According to many articles that's a common misconception - that younger people empowered by Tinder can bang each other more and casually.[1] From my own anecdotes Tinder is actually a hindrance, since it creates a picture-oriented, extremely competitive environment where lack of physical attractiveness effectively shuts down the world of dating to the majority of men and women who aren't 8s, 9s, or 10s.[2]

I mean, on the net you'll often hear stories about kids scoring big but that's survivor bias. You don't hear anything from those who didn't bang.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/no-sex-please-were-mill... [2] http://time.com/4435058/millennials-virgins-sex/

I'm at the age now where my friend's kids are getting to the sexually active stage of their life. They seem waaay tamer than what me and their parents were like at their age. I doubt that they are having more sex or even trying as hard. They certain Dont party like we did our have massive benders either.

> Isn't there a lot of talk about how today's youth is much less likely to date/engage in sexual activity?

could be but those two things needn't be mutually exclusive. maybe the youth is just more extreme in both directions whereas earlier people might have been more similar.

That's factually untrue according to the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior[0]. The facts are[1] that the younger the age group the higher the condom usage is.

And while condom use has fallen a little since its height, it still remains significantly higher amongst the young than any older generation or group.

[0] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/ [1] http://www.nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu/condomgraph.html

It's really hard to interpret that graph when you consider things like relationships and marriage, and that older people are probably more likely to be married.

My anedoctes are from Brazil (São Paulo), I don't think that paper's conclusion extends to a different group.

Not only that I've had friends on Truvada (PrEP) that use condoms less because they know they won't get HIV.

Why is that a bad thing? I don't know for the US, but in other countries you have mandatory tests (hepatitis, gonorrhea, many others) to do every 3 months in order to get the treatment. This alone makes you more protected than people who only use condoms as protection and think they don't need tests.

They only check Liver/HIV every 3 months (I have to ask for liver every 3, my doctor was going to do it only every 6). I make my doctor also do a full screening but by default he doesn't.

One could expect better indeed. Undiagnosed STDs can be nasty.

The concept doesn't exist in the States, sadly.

Americans please correct me, but here it's more symptomatic with sexual health: You have a rash/etc, so you go see the doctor. There's no early-detection system where you are reminded to get into a clinic every 2-3 months and get a full test (blood test, swabs, etc) for all the usual suspects: HIV, herpes, chlamydia, etc.

I live in Baltimore, and I'm on PrEP. Everyone I know who takes it, including myself, is required to get tested for STDs every 3 months.

I think that being on PrEP is the exception.

My friends weren't wrapping it when I was in uni 6-10 years ago because every girl was on birth control.

I am gay so I have used condoms my whole life but my straight friends routinely go out and have unprotected sex all the time, I'd say about 5% of my straight friends consistently use condoms.

It's a design problem. Sex with condom sucks. Non-condom sex is 10x better.

The real solution will be when you have male birth control available as well; and then it comes down to only having sex with people you trust. I great partner is better than a bunch of lousy partners anyways.

Don't they have vasectomy already?

Irreversible, so not a solution.

I'm 29, and so far every woman I've fucked, I ended up deciding I didn't want to marry / have children with. But that's still on the table like it is for the vast majority of men, so vasectomy is not an option.

As someone who came of sexual age in the 90s, between HIV and getting someone pregnant I was (and still would be - I'm married now so...) terrified of sex without a condom.

The other big factor people don't like to use condom is that it greatly reduced the sensation, regardless how the condom companies have been advertising it.

That's horrible, and nonsensical for the time period. With the amount of advocacy, and information available. Why would ANYONE consider not using a condom in uncommitted relationships?

Because it doesn't feel the same, duh. Might as well ask why people have sex at all instead of staying home safely and jerking off.

One reason is that the STDs you do tend to catch from casual uni sex are cured by a $20 pill, if that's even on your mind when you're drunk in someone's dorm bed.

"Shit, I got HIV/warts from hooking up" just isn't something I ever heard in uni. It just isn't part of the discourse. Those just don't seem to penetrate the uni bubble.

But everyone I know had to deal with the clap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com