Sex Buddy

[little pingoin]

The number is important...because it tells you the cumulative probability that he/she has caught some for of STD that will ruin your life. More sex partners, the great the chance of an STD. An accident waiting to happen.

Bah! If you really want to know your chances of getting cooties, swap blood tests. Anyone who throws caution out the window because their partner tells them they've only been with 2 other people deserves to contract an STD.

[CAM]

Bah! If you really want to know your chances of getting cooties, swap drug tests. Anyone who throws caution out the window because their partner tells them they've only been with 2 other people deserves to contract an STD.

Such a cynical view of the world. If there's no trust at all, then what's the point of ever partnering with anyone for any reason? Might as well masturbate yourself to the grave, not reproduce, not fall in love, and curl up and die.

Currently, I dwell in a social Hell but would engage socially and even marry if I lived in a more hospitable locale. Where I am (and perhaps where you are) is not a preferred location with desirable mates?

If one wanted a better reason to be cynical, try this on for size--our energy supply in the form of fossil energy will be significantly depleted in 50-100 years, unless we do something about a significant shift to nuclear. And, climate change (for whatever reason it is occurring) will lead to massive shortfalls in food and fresh water. In other words, if the STDs don't wipe you off the map, starvation, disease and other disasters will do it very effectively (and/or take your kids off the map, if you aren't around)

BTW. The first sentence is an if/then statement; yet, where's the "then" part? You've established the condition, but never the conclusion/effect part of your statement.

[little pingoin]

It's not cynical. It's practical and more reliable than the method you described, on which I was commenting.

Your argument was knowing the number of people a person has had sex with gives you sufficient information to determine that person's sexual health based on probability.

People lie.
People misremember.
People define sex differently. (a woman can tell you she's had one partner but won't tell you about the 10 guys she gave head to because she doesn't count that as sex)
People catch something the first time they have sex.
People stay clean even after the 50th or 150th encounter.
People become infected because their partners are unfaithful.
A virgin can have AIDS and not know it.

So I contend that the number is not important. It's about as useful as knowing the exact number of cigarettes a person smoked when determining their chances of developing cancer.

Again, if you want to know your chances of getting cooties, then swap tests.

[valkyrie4896]

No matter what, a little precaution and protection never hurts.

[CAM]

It's not cynical. It's practical and more reliable than the method you described, on which I was commenting.

Your argument was knowing the number of people a person has had sex with gives you sufficient information to determine that person's sexual health based on probability.

People lie.
People misremember.
People define sex differently. (a woman can tell you she's had one partner but won't tell you about the 10 guys she gave head to because she doesn't count that as sex)
People catch something the first time they have sex.
People stay clean even after the 50th or 150th encounter.
People become infected because their partners are unfaithful.
A virgin can have AIDS and not know it.

So I contend that the number is not important. It's about as useful as knowing the exact number of cigarettes a person smoked when determining their chances of developing cancer.

Again, if you want to know your chances of getting cooties, then swap tests.

Everything you say is true...about people being dishonest, etc. Yes, and it is very practical.

I hate to be an idealist (really, I do), but if we've arrived at the point where "practical" must override love, then we as a society are truly f'd up. If we have to not trust anyone, and must swap tests, etc....then what's the point? Really. The generation of Free Love has given way to the generation of Practicality. Somewhere along the line, "love" and "romance" faded away.

If that's the case, I say just live out your life in peace and let the human race fade away. Well, at least that portion of the human race that has degraded itself to such a point that it is now morally and physically in a most fetid condition.

[Gigabitch]

Look at it this way, CAM. You trust her, but you don't trust her ex-boyfriend. So get a test before you have unprotected sex. Nothing wrong with that.

[Rollerderby]

I made a decision at one point to not have casual sex.

I've regretted some decisions I've made, but never this one.

Ditto. I never went wild, but I've had enough casual sex to last me a lifetime. It's only for people I really care about now.

The problem is, you can still get an std from someone who you have fallen in love with.

[CAM]

Look at it this way, CAM. You trust her, but you don't trust her ex-boyfriend. So get a test before you have unprotected sex. Nothing wrong with that.

Again, very true and wouldn't deny the observation. Just asking again, is this a house of cards...cumulative relationships built on deceit. Is this really sustainable? Testing or not? Its pathetic.

[IndiReloaded]

Well, if people wouldn't be so quick to spread their legs and do the dirty after a month (or less!) of dating one might actually get to *know* one's partner. After a few months, some trust might even be there to make the testing more of a formality or, perhaps even unnecessary (depending on the history of the people involved).

That said, I am on the very low end of # partners for my age and rather old-fashioned by today's standards. Even still I wouldn't be offended if someone I was considering a longterm partnership with requested, tactfully, that we both got tested. I would consider it pragmatic, not offensive. Hell, with what the kids get up to these days, even a technical virgin could have picked up some cooties.

[IndiReloaded]

If one wanted a better reason to be cynical, try this on for size--our energy supply in the form of fossil energy will be significantly depleted in 50-100 years, unless we do something about a significant shift to nuclear.

Are you really pro-nuclear, Cam? Good for you! We are incredibly disappointed with Canada's f-up with regards to managing the Candu Reactors (which, if you don't know, can use unenriched uranium). Here's some info, in case its of interest:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor[/url]

[Cbrider]

I'm converting to become a nun atm, sucks to have all the problems you guys do.

[Mish]

Who waits until they love someone before they have sex with him/her? (I'm sure some do but not most)

I used to think the number of sexual partners a person had was important. Why? Am I really going to love a person more if he's had sex with 4 people instead of 24 people?

What about 4 instead of 400?

I think there is definitely a boundary after which you begin to wonder about integrity and moral make up of some people. The only difference is where that boundary is varies for different people.

[misombra]

geez. all this arguing about religion and how many partners is acceptable blah blah blah.

this forum is getting boring.

[little pingoin]

What about 4 instead of 400?

I think there is definitely a boundary after which you begin to wonder about integrity and moral make up of some people. The only difference is where that boundary is varies for different people.

People can do some really stupid things when they're drunk and in college. Likewise, I recently went to Las Vegas and was saddened by the number of 18-yr-old women were listed in the 'entertainment' section of the telephone book. I suspect their numbers won't look pretty in a few years, but that doesn't mean they aren't good people and won't make good wives and mothers some day.

[Mish]

People can do some really stupid things when they're drunk and in college. Likewise, I recently went to Las Vegas and was saddened by the number of 18-yr-old women were listed in the 'entertainment' section of the telephone book. I suspect their numbers won't look pretty in a few years, but that doesn't mean they aren't good people and won't make good wives and mothers some day.

I think it's less about the actual numbers and more about what kind of people they really are. (When we start talking about 100+ sex partners) Are they the kind of people who don't value themselves and their bodies? Why would anyone want to be with someone like that? Sure people can change, but in reality few people do.