Hacker News Reader

You are veering into tone troll territory.

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.

I'm talking about those who haven't settle down with a sexual partner, those who keep experimenting are the ones who have the highter probability.

Your definition is quite different than the usual definition of promiscuous. For example, it means that everyone who has had sex for the first time, and who hasn't yet decided if this partner is permanent, is promiscuous.

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.

>Your definition is quite different than the usual definition of promiscuous

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.

"mine is one of them."

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.

>No, it isn't.

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.

>> If me saying that being promiscuous has more risc of getting an STD botters you, sorry, is still a fact.

That's not what you said, you said it was a virtually zero chance, this is incorrect.

Ahh, your view is that the definition of "promiscuous" varies, and so you can define it any way you want. Where I want to use a definition that more than one person follows.

"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'm not mad, but your constant insistence that you're not wrong 'in context' is nonsensical.

I mean that literally, it doesn't make any sense, given the facts you've been told.

> I'm not mad, but your constant insistence that you're not wrong 'in context' is nonsensical.

I have a different opinion, I'm not wrong.

>I mean that literally, it doesn't make any sense

What doesn't make sense?

>> I have a different opinion, I'm not wrong.

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.

Man, I don't think he's mad. He spent a great deal of time to correct you and you're arguing on semantics. Just lose already.