Condoms not effective against HPV or herpes
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
My British education, from the 90's, taught me the risks of HSV and HPV transmission occurring despite barrier methods (condoms). I'm assuming seeing as this is being voted up that this isn't something taught in America?
The explanation is simple, herpes and hpv can exist on skin not covered by a condom, thus it can still be transmitted.
They found that "Viral isolates in three couples (0.6%) were highly related, consistent with transmission of virus within the couple." This can be from non-sexual means, so this places an upper bound on the transmission rate; that being "approximately one per 190,000 sexual contacts." Indeed, it's very rare, if it does happen.
However, that paper is titled "Sexual transmission of hepatitis C virus among monogamous heterosexual couples", and the paper you linked to was also for heterosexual couples. What about men who have sex with men?
The paper at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24669911 says "Outbreaks of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have been reported in HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) in North America, Europe and Asia. Transmission is believed to be the result of exposure to blood during sexual contact."
In the US context, the US Centers for Disease Control, at http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/c/CFAQ.htm , says "Less commonly, a person can also get Hepatitis C virus infection through ... Having sexual contact with a person infected with the Hepatitis C virus", so I think it's perfectly acceptable for a US OB/GYN to follow their guidance.
I've been kicking around the idea of just paying the $500-1000 out of pocket.
"Yet if we acquire a lifelong viral "souvenir" through sex, may it be from a person who is important forever. It's a minimal-regrets way to assess the value of a relationship before risking exposure. When it comes to viral STDs, the devil is in the details."
If you are promiscuous of course, for those who don't the chance is almost cero.
> but assuming people are truthful is horrible science
Is not even science, but what are we? robots?
Consider Human cytomegalovirus, in the herpes family. http://www.cdc.gov/cmv/overview.html says that "Among every 100 adults in the United States, 50–80 are infected with CMV by the time they are 40 years old." Elsewhere the CDC says "The virus is generally passed from infected people to others through direct contact with body fluids, such as urine, saliva, or breast milk." and "If a woman is infected with CMV before becoming pregnant, the risk of passing the virus to her fetus is about 1 in 100." and "For pregnant women, the two most common exposures to CMV are through sexual contact and through contact with the urine and saliva of young children with CMV infection."
In other words, kissing is a possible vector, as is breast feeding, and changing a baby's wet diaper.
And that's only one STD virus. So no, the chance is not almost zero, even excluding joshbaptiste's observation.
The immediately preceding line was "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are". Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already."
What wrong things?
> "Yet most people don't know about how common viral STDs actually are".
Of course, there is a lot of missinformation, still, how does that contradict my statement?
> Not "you're going to get it" but "people have it already."
Well exactly, but my statement was the not promiscuous have almost cero possibility, not that they won't get it.
>That doesn't speak well of your commenting style
Neather of your comprehension abilities.
It is wrong because 1) even if you only have sex with one other person, that other person might have one or more STDs, 2) viral STDs are passed by more than sex; babies can get an STD congenitally, and STDs can be passed through other fluids including kissing, and it can be passed through blood transfusion and needle sharing, 3) those who are raped can get an STD even though they have never otherwise had sex.
About 80-90% of American adults have herpes simplex type-1. It can be passed by kissing, sharing toothbrushes or utensils, etc. Many people carry the virus and don’t even know it. (See https://www.health.arizona.edu/health_topics/sexual_health/k... as one of many sources.)
So no. Even someone who has followed a vow of chastity and has never had sex still has a not-near-zero chance of having a viral STD.
To be more precise you'll need to quantify what promiscuous means. Certainly for someone with 4 or so sex partners in their life - by nearly all measures this is not promiscuous - do not have an "almost zero possibility" of having a viral STD.
Exactly, in the context of the article, and that is condoms, hence, sexual relations, see that? why you so mad?
To get back on track, please define what you mean by "promiscuous", as the article makes no mention of that and there are multiple possible interpretations.
The median number of sexual partners is 3-8 (see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm ), so that's the likely context of the readership. You must be talking about more than that, to be "promiscuous", as something different than "normal sex life."
If so, then you are talking about a different context.
Or do you use the term "promiscuous" for anyone who has had more than one sexual partner? If so, that is certainly not the context of the article.
Thus, your definition concerns intent, when viruses don't care one whit about intent.
You see this in the sex research literature - for example, "men who have sex with men" is a category which is irrespective of self-identification, as MSM is the action, while "gay", "queer", "homosexual", "bisexual", "polysexual", "bi-curious", etc. have cultural and motivational meaning beyond the mechanics.
Again, your use of moralistic terms like "promiscuous", "experimenting", and "settle down" suggest to me that you have a sex-negative viewpoint.
People like sex. Most people have sex with multiple partners over their lives. Advice like "don't ever have sex except in a committed marriage to a monogamous spouse" isn't effective, and has never been effective. It does it make people hide their sexuality ... but they'll still have sex. It instead means they won't get the information they need for safe sex.
We see this in the US where abstinence only sex education has been shown to be ineffective at changing behavior, while real sex education, including how to use a condom, leads to better outcomes. See http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf as one of many such summaries.
If you're going to suggest unreasonable solutions, you might as well suggest people live in their own isolated bubble suits - it will certainly prevent STD transmission, where your suggestion doesn't.
According to Wikipedia, the word promiscuous may have different definitions, mine is one of them.
>Again, your use of moralistic terms like "promiscuous", "experimenting", and "settle down" suggest to me that you have a sex-negative viewpoint.
What moralistic is that? is just an opinion.
>People like sex. Most people have sex with multiple partners over their lives. Advice like "don't ever have sex except in a committed marriage to a monogamous spouse" isn't effective, and has never been effective. It does it make people hide their sexuality ... but they'll still have sex. It instead means they won't get the information they need for safe sex.
So, it doesn't mean it is safe or free of consequences, promiscuous people have more risc in contracting a SDT how is that a moral judgment? is not.
>We see this in the US where abstinence only sex education has been shown to be ineffective at changing behavior
I'm not talking about abstinence,I'm talkiing of having less sex partners to have less riscs, simple as that.
>If you're going to suggest unreasonable solutions
Who is sugesting anything? I was making a simple observation, but some how, you feel judged, I wonder why.
No, it isn't. Prove me otherwise. According to your definition, anyone who has sex other than in a long-term monogamous relationship is promiscuous. Quote where the WP page says something similar.
"What moralistic is that?"
According to the same Wikipedia page you mentioned "The term can carry a moral judgement if viewed in the context of a mainstream social ideal for sexual activity to occur only within exclusive committed relationships." That's exactly the way you used it.
You presume that everyone has specific end goals with sex. Not everyone who has sex with multiple partners is "experimenting". Not everyone wants to "settle down".
"is just an opinion"
There's no contradiction. Expressing opinions is one of the ways that morality reveals itself. The way you have expressed your opinions is judgmental and moralistic.
"promiscuous people have more risc in contracting a SDT ..."
The majority of people have an STD, even those who never have sex. Some STDs can be passed by kissing or sharing a toothbrush. Others require genital contact. I therefore observe that going within 100 meters of other people, or where other people have been, gives more risk in contracting an STD.
My observation is much more valid than yours, for reasons I highlighted earlier. Yours is mostly pointless, because having sex with multiple partners is only one risk factor, and not even the most significant risk factor. You can be completely monogamous and have only had sex with a single partner, and still get an STD from that partner; all the more so if that partner has frequent unsafe sex with a large number of partners.
"I'm not talking about abstinence"
Never said you were. I'm saying that sex positive safe sex education is more effective at improving social outcomes (reducing virus spread, reducing unplanned pregnancy, etc.) than anything which tries to reduce promiscuity. Therefore your observation is not only full of counter-cases but experience shows it can't be used for effective decision making - except by those wishing to enforce a certain morality.
"some how, you feel judged, I wonder why"
That's the second time you've tried to use that derailment tactic. It's an irrelevant ad hominem detail, and you should learn to not use it.
Says who? you? here is what Wikipedia says:
What sexual behavior is considered promiscuous varies between cultures, as does the prevalence of promiscuity, with different standards often being applied to different genders and civil status, see? varies.
> There's no contradiction. Expressing opinions is one of the ways that morality reveals itself
If you think that my tone is about morals, is your problem, and if it is about morals, so what? do you have a problem with morals?
> The majority of people have an STD, even those who never have sex
Citation needed, and depending of what kind of STD you are talking about, there are some that are no problem, but those transmited only by sexual relations are the most dangerous, and the promiscuous has more chances getting it, period.
>My observation is much more valid than yours
Says who? you?
If me saying that being promiscuous has more risc of getting an STD botters you, sorry, is still a fact.
>Never said you were
Yet you brought the subject, proving nothing but you are desesperating trying to justify your point with information that has nothing to do with the topic.
>That's the second time you've tried to use that derailment tactic
Nope, is the second time you are not getting it, at this point I feel I already wont the argument, no more replies from me.
That's not what you said, you said it was a virtually zero chance, this is incorrect.
"Citation needed"
What's wrong with the CDC and U. of Arizona links I gave earlier? And you added nothing new to what I wrote before.
"is still a fact."
It's a boring fact. It can't be used for anything. Why do you even bring up useless facts?
I mean that literally, it doesn't make any sense, given the facts you've been told.
I have a different opinion, I'm not wrong.
>I mean that literally, it doesn't make any sense
What doesn't make sense?
You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. Here is your original post -
"> Experts say being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable
If you are promiscuous of course, for those who don't the chance is almost cero."
This is factually incorrect as there many, many ways for people to acquire infections commonly referred to as STDs without having had sex. You could have them right now even if you are a virgin.
>> What doesn't make sense?
That you continue saying things like "Exactly, in the context of the article, and that is condoms, hence, sexual relations, see that?"
These make no sense because people can get these diseases without having sex, and then pass them on to people they have sex with, even if it's only one other person in their whole life. Regardless of context.
Your chance of catching an STD from contact with a non-promiscuous person is quite high, because many, many humans have them from other means. You are not that well protected from some infections (herpes simplex in particular) even if you only ever have sex with one partner, and they do the same. (See other comments for how likely that actually is)
Once more - you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts, and saying "but context!" doesn't make any sense.
Which do you mean?
It starts off with STD viruses as a whole, then narrows that down to the most life-threatening viruses; HIV and hep B and hep C. It talks about sex as one vector for the transmission of STDs, but also points out that "60% of hepatitis carriers acquired the virus be means other than sexual intercourse."
It then says that condoms would have been effective for the other 40%, then cautions that effectiveness for hepatitis doesn't equate to similar effectiveness for all other STDs.
You'll notice that the article is only talking about condoms. It is not trying to be complete. Otherwise it would have included, for example, a discussion of oral dams.
Since it isn't trying to be complete, you can't use the lack of details about other transmission vectors to draw any conclusions about how an average or below average number of sexual partners leads to a "near zero" likelihood of getting a viral STD.
It doesn't even try because at the top it observes that "since the AIDS epidemic, awareness of sexually transmitted diseases seems embedded as a Bay Area cultural norm". The article is meant for a Bay Area reader, and hence the author has an expectation that the reader does not need details about basic information.
Based on your use of the term "promiscuous", and assumption about the context, I am going to infer that you did not have a similarly sex-positive sex education.
Same with cold sores. If you've ever eaten at a restaurant, shared silverware, or been kissed by someone, there's a damn good chance you have the virus. Oh but "You've never had a cold sore." Yeah, most of the time they're asymptomatic, too.
So, "being exposed to at least one STD virus is virtually inevitable" is a valid but somewhat clumsy way of saying that in general, people will be exposed to STDs. But it's not saying that you, the individual person reading this will inevitably be exposed, and nor is it saying that your individual spouse/partner is probably lying about their sexual history.
Unless maybe she's a virgin. In which case there's even a chance she contracted one during childbirth or through some other means.